SOLD  AT  THE 

to 

©Hf®§ OTQBY 

0 
I 

OF    THE 

| 

American  Baptist  Publication,  a> 

and  Sunday  Scliool  Society,      e 

No.  21  South  Fourth  St.  Philada.  £ 

£5 

3*" 

.2 

^ 

IE 

*S 

3 

< 

0> 

.i^ 

IE 

SZ            H» 

Ql 

«o       & 

o 

o 

5 

w           O 

<u 

§> 

.^J 

•25            E-i 

3 

^ 

jT 

ft 

E 

o 

<y 

«s 

•5         « 

(/> 

% 

1 

+*         h 
^ 

^ 

=? 

q 

* 

73 
Q> 

*-> 
c 

s- 

>^ 

a> 

^ 

•§o 

0) 

CL 

1 

1 

— 

5c8 

y  y\  t   / -*■»-/  / 

cA 

/o</ 

7U 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofchristOOwo 


THE   DOCTRINE 

OF 

CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 

EXAMINED    BY    THE 
ACKNOWLEDGED  PRINCIPLES 

OP 

BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

IN  TWO  PARTS, 

INCLUDING  BOTH  THE  HOSE  AND  THE  ■UBJECT*/ 


BY  JAMES  J.  WOOLSEY. 


In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching"  for  doctrines, 
the  commandments  of  men. — Christ.     Mark  vii.  7. 

But  I  will  show  thee  that  which  is  noted  in  the  Scrip- 
ture of  truth. — Danisi.  x.  21. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED   BY   I.  ASHMEAD 
1840. 


Entered  according"  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the 
year  1840,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of 
the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


At  a  special  meeting  of  the  Ncrwalk  Baptist  Church, 
to  take  into  consideration  the  utility  of  printing  the 
Sermons  on  Baptism,  delivered  by  their  Pastor,  Rev. 
James  J.  Woolsey,  in  the  months  of  June  and  July, 
1840, 

It  was  voted  unanimously,  that  he  be  requested  to 
furnish  a  copy  for  the  press. 

Resolved,  That  John  Arnold,  Gilbert  Hathaway, 
and  Andrew  Turney,  be  a  committee  to  communicate 
the  above  vote  to  Rev.  James  J.  Woolsey. 

Attested,  J.  ARNOLD,  Secretary. 


Norwalk,  Aug.  11,  1840. 
Reverend  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  undersigned,  by  an  appointment  of  the  Church, 
have  the  honour  to  communicate  to  you  the  above  re- 
quest ;  and  they  have  the  pleasure  to  assure  you,  that 
they  are, 

With  great  respect, 
Dear  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servants, 
JOHN  ARNOLD, 
GILBERT  HATHAWAY, 
ANDREW  TURNEY. 


' 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  offering  to  the  Christian  public  a  new  Manual  on 
Baptism,  it  may  be  expected  that  some  proemial  remarks 
should  go  before  and  prepare  the  way  for  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  work  itself,  no  less  than  acquaint  the 
reader  of  some  of  the  reasons  which  have  prevailed 
with  the  Author  to  place  this  little  volume  into  the  hands 
of  those  who  would  fain  copy  the  example  of  Jesus. 

The  following  sheets  were  originally  prepared  for  my 
own  congregation,  without  the  most  distant  expectation 
that  they  would  ever  be  called  for,  and  printed  for  public 
utility.  In  some  particulars,  they  would  have  borne  a 
different,  and  in  my  estimation,  a  more  desirable  aspect, 
had  I  anticipated  what  I  now  realize.  And  yet  I  am 
apprehensive  that  they  will  be  in  their  present  form,  no 
less  acceptable  to  those  whose  interest  they  consult,  than 
though  presented  as  I  might  prefer  them. 

Select  portions  only,  of  what  I  had  written,  were  de- 
livered to  the  people  of  my  charge. 

This  circumstance  was  made  known  to  the  Committee 
who  waited  upon  me  from  the  Church,  and  assurance 
was  had,  that  it  could  form  no  objection  against  printing 


•  INTRODUCTION. 

what  had  been  prepared,  and  not  those  "  select  portions 
only."  The  circumstance  last  mentioned,  together  with 
having  commented  more  largely  on  the  nineteenth  of 
Acts,  and  my  having  reduced  the  sermons  to  a  book 
form,  with  chapters  and  sections,  will  account  for  the 
work  appearing  different  from  what  it  did  when  heard 
from  the  desk. 

While  this  little  Treatise  lays  no  claim  to  distin- 
guished merit,  yet  it  is  not  wholly  void  of  originality. 
Every  point  at  issue,  examined  in  the  following  pages, 
and  advocated  by  Baptists,  is  substantiated  by  an  appeal 
to  the  Word  of  God,  as  interpreted  by  Pedobaptists 
themselves. 

The  many  honest  concessions  of  some  of  the  most 
able  and  learned  Pedobaptist  authors,  cited  in  this 
work,  constitute  one  of  its  distinguishing  peculiarities, 
and  cannot  fail  to  recommend  it  to  the  confidence  of 
others. 

On  no  point  do  I  appeal  to  Baptist  authors,  in  sup- 
port of  what  I  advance.  I  might  have  done  so  to  great 
effect,  and  with  very  much  propriety.  But  having 
heard  it  suggested,  that  one  of  the  main  sources  of 
proof,  in  favour  of  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  and 
one  to  which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  have  frequent 
recourse,  is  that  of  quoting  their  own  authors  ;  and 
having  learned  that  such  is  the  singular  fact,  I  resolved 
to  avoid  the  possibility  of  having  a  similar  charge  pre- 
ferred against  me.  In  pursuance  with  this  design,  I 
have  confined  my  citations  from  uninspired  authors, 
to  Pedobaptists,  with  few  exceptions,  where  I  have 
availed  myself  of  the  unbiassed  judgment  of  Quakers 


INTRODUCTION. 


Vll 


and  Jews,  with  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  earliest 
translators  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  question  may  be  asked  how  it  comes  to  pass  that 
Pedobaptists  should  bear  the  most  decided  testimony 
against  their  own  cause? 

I  reply,  first  :  Some  of  them,  as  Drs.  Wall,  Camp- 
bell, and  Whitby,  became  convinced  of  the  error  of 
sprinkling,  and  most  fully  justify  immersion  as  the  only 
Christian  Baptism ;  while  at  the  same  time  they  hold 
to  and  advocate  infant  baptism. 

Others  again  abandon  infant  baptism,  but  still  retain 
their  predilections  for  sprinkling. 

Secondly  :  All  error,  when  seeking  to  wear  the  as- 
pect of  truth,  comes  in  contact  with  truth  itself. 

Truth  and  error  can  never  be  made  to  harmonize  :  the 
former  will  continually  show  a  just  repugnance  to  the 
latter,  and  the  latter  will,  as  continually,  cross  the  path 
of  the  former.  Hence  it  is  that,  Protestant  Pedobap- 
tists, when  defending  the  revealed  truths  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  against  infidelity  or  Romanism,  are  guided 
by  the  just  and  acknowledged  laws  of  Biblical  interpre- 
tation ;  but  when  they  attempt  to  support  sprinkling  and 
infant  baptism,  then  they  abandon,  for  the  time  being,  the 
very  principles,  which  before  they  so  justly  and  wisely 
acknowledged.  On  the  one  hand  they  acknowledge 
what  they  refuse  on  the  other.  Now  they  concede  the 
point  that  Baptists  are  right,  and  now  again  they  with- 
hold such  concessions. 

Thirdly  :  Pedobaptists  are  not  united  among  them- 
selves, as  to  what  method  and  arguments  they  shall  adopt 
to  sustain  them,  in.  their   unhappy  position.    What  is 


v^  INTRODUCTION. 

cherished  by  one  is  discarded  by  another.  What  one 
advances  in  support  of  their  peculiar  views,  is  utterly 
rejected  by  another  as  insufficient  and  untenable.  Some 
feel  it  the  part  of  candour  to  concede  what  others  have 
not  the  ingenuousness  to  acknowledge.  And  thus  at  one 
time  and  another  they  concede  all  that  Baptists  claim. 

And  thus  ill  several  ways  they  manifestly  show  that 
their  rock  is  not  as  our  rock,  they  themselves  being 
judges. 

In  conclusion,  suffer  me  to  remark,  that,  while  I  have 
not  shunned  to  declare  the  truth  in  soberness  and  with 
much  assurance  ;  yet,  in  all,  it  has  been  in  kindness.  I 
thought  it  the  part  of  candour  arid  fidelity  to  brethren  to 
deal  plainly;  but  if  I  know  my  own  heart,  I  have  said 
nothing  out  of  strife,  or  with  the  desire  to  wound  the 
feelings  of  others.  I  have  this  testimony,  that  what  I 
have  written  was  penned  with  much  affection  towards 
those  from  whose  views  I  conscientiously  dissent. 
Should  the  Lord  glorify  himself  through  this  feeble  effort 
by  introducing  his  people  to  an  acquaintance  with  his 
own  blessed  institution,  and  unite  them  in  one  practice 
as  they  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus,  my  object  is  attained. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

Philadelphia,  Nov.  1840. 


\        *% 

THE    DOCTRINE 

OF 

CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 


PART     I. 


CHAPTER  1. 

Mark  i.  9,  10.  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days, 
that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  bap- 
tized of  John  in  Jordan;  and  straightway  coming-  up  out 
of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit, 
like  a  dove,  descending-  upon  him." 


Section  I. 

MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

To  persons  of  observation,  it  must  appear 
that  the  times  under  which  we  are  fallen,  are 
big  with  important  events.  The  more  judi- 
cious and  wise  are  not  without  some  just  an- 
ticipations that  the  present  unsettled  state  of 
affairs,  both  in  a  political  and  religious  aspect, 
is  to  give  place  to  another  still  in  advance  of 
2 


14  MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

any  thing  that  has  hitherto  been  enjoyed.  We 
are  passing  on  from  the  comparatively  ob- 
scure, to  behold  the  splendours  of  a  brighter 
and  more  perfect  day — "  to  be  partakers  of 
the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed." 

That  there  are  in  reserve  for  us,  events  of  a 
deep  and  thrilling  interest,  all  must  admit. 
Nor  has  such  a  sentiment  obtained  without 
just  and  sufficient  reasons.  Apart  from  the 
instructions  of  the  word  of  God,  that,  "Of  the 
increase  of  his  government  and  peace  there 
shall  be  no  end,"  his  holy  providence  indicates 
the  near  approach  of  changes  in  the  affairs  of 
men  of  no  ordinary  moment.  There  is  much 
betokened  in  the  present  powerful  excitement 
which  so  generally  pervades  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  "  Wars  and  rumours  of  wars"  are  the 
precursors  of  changes  which  more  or  less 
affect  the  aspect  of  human  society.  The  pride 
and  restless  ambition  of  the  aspiring,  pressing 
forward  to  affluence  and  distinction,  have, 
within  the  few  past  years,  left  us  mournful  ex- 
amples of  the  supreme  folly  of  laying  up  trea- 
sures only  for  time. 

The  growing  dissatisfaction  among  the 
people  with  church  establishments  and  eccle- 
siastical tyranny,  is  indicative  of  the  happiest 
consequences  to  men,  both  as  it  respects  their 
political  and  religious  privileges.  No  event 
of  human  legislation  is  more  deeply  to  be  de- 
plored than  that  of  uniting  church  and  stale. 
None  has  been   more  prolific,  as  a  source  of 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.  ]  5 

error  and  disquietude,  than  a  union  so  unnatu- 
ral and  inimical  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 
Whatever  shall  tend  to  sever  these  bands,  and 
leave  the  consciences  of  men  free,  to  be  influ- 
enced by  the  word  of  God  in  all  matters  of 
religion,  shall  equally  contribute  to  bring  for- 
ward that  day  when  the  watchmen  shall  see 
eye  to  eye;  unite  in  teaching  the  same  truths, 
and  in  keeping  the  ordinances  as  they  were 
when  first  delivered  to  the  church. 

The  present  spirit  of  inquiry  among  the 
Jews;  the  restraints  which  are  taken  off  of 
them  by  some  of  the  ruling  powers;  the  strong 
conviction  of  which  many  of  them  are  pos- 
sessed, that  the  Messiah  has  come;  their  wil- 
lingness to  read  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and 
compare  them  with  the  New  Testament;  and 
indeed,  the  whole  aspect  in  which  that  long 
dispersed  and  afflicted  people  are  now  viewed, 
shows  signs  of  some  stupendous  and  hitherto 
unexampled  change  in  their  condition. 

The  recent  doings  of  the  American  Bible 
Societies,*  in  refusing  to  aid  in  the  circulation 

*"In  1835,  application  for  aid  was  made  by  Messrs 
Yates,  and  Pearce  directly  to  the  American  Bible  Society. 
The  subject  was  taken  up  by  the  Board  of  Managers. 
A  committee  of  seven  persons,  one  from  each  denomina- 
tion, was  appointed  to  take  this  subject  into  considera- 
tion. A  majority  of  this  committee,  in  their  zeal  for 
sprinkling,  at  their  first  meeting-,  passed  a  resolution  that 
our  versions  were  false  in  translating-  baptizo  to  immerse! 
But  after  reflecting-  on  the  business  for  a  night,  they  re- 
scinded that  resolution,  doubtless  from  a  conviction  that 


IQ  MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures  among  the  dying  mil- 
lions of  India,  unless  those  words  which  teach 


the  Baptists  would  be  able  triumphantly  to  demonstrate 
their  versions  to  be  true.  They  then  agreed  upon  ano- 
ther resolution  of  this  import: — 'That  it  was  inexpedient 
to  grant  aid  for  the  publication  of  any  version  in  which 
baptizo  is  translated  by  a  word  signifying  to  immerse!' 
A  report  to  this  effect  was  presented  to  the  Board.  Rev. 
S.H.  Cone,  the  only  Baptist  on  the  Committee,  presented 
a  counter  report.  The  subject  was  discussed  at  some 
length,  and  then  referred  back  to  the  same  Committee. 
The  Committee  again  met,  annulled  their  last  resolution, 
and  substituted  for  it,  '  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  grant 
aid  to  any  version  except  those  that  conformed  in  their 
principles  to  the  common  English  version;  at  least,  so 
far,  as  that  all  the  religious  denominations  represented 
in  this  society,  can  consistently  use  and  circulate  said 
versions  in  their  several  schools  and  communities.'  *  * 
"We  stated  that  we  considered  the  conduct  of  the 
American  Bible  Society  towards  us,  as  a  denomination, 
to  be  unconstitutional,  because  though  all  the  denomina- 
tions represented  in  the  American  Bible  Society  agreed 
to  the  use  of  the  English  version,  they  did  not  agree  to 
adopt  it  as  the  standard  of  translation  in  other  languages; 
because  the  first  article  of  the  constitution,  which  states 
that  the  only  copies  in  the  English  language  to  be  circu- 
lated by  the  Society,  shall  be  of  the  version  now  in  com- 
mon use,  impliedly  disavows  the  idea  of  considering  that 
version  as  the  standard  in  other  languages;  because  the 
convention  which  formed  the  constitution,  in  their  ad- 
dress to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  which  address 
was  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Society  and  Board  of 
Managers  as  their  own,  declare,  That  the  great  object  of 
the  Society  shall  be,  the  dissemination  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  received  versions  where  they  exist,  and  in  the  most 
faithful  where  they  may  be  required.  In  the  work 
of  foreign  distribution,  they  evidently  contemplated  a 
very  different  rule  of  action  from  that  recently  adopted. 
The  Baptist  denomination  had  made  twenty-seven  ver- 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.  jy 

the  ordinance  of  baptism  be  given  to  the  hea- 
then in    Greek,  a  language   with  which  the 


sions  of  the  Bible,  which  were  received,  and  in  use,  in 
the  year  1815.  The  American  Bible  Society  was  organ- 
ized in  the  year  1815.  According-  to  their  constitution 
and  avowed  principles  of  action,  they  were  bound  to  aid 
us  in  the  circulation  of  these  versions  if  they  possessed 
the  means.  All  our  subsequent  translations  of  the  Bible 
have  been  made  in  exact  conformity  to  the  rule  required 
— they  are  " most  faithful."  That  they  are  most  faith- 
fully executed,  may  be  inferred  from  the  character  and 
qualifications  of  the  missionaries  employed,  and  from  the 
instructions  given  to  said  missionaries  by  the  American 
Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  also  from  the 
resolutions  they  have  adopted  in  reference  to  this  all  im- 
portant subject,  which  are  as  follow: 

"  'Resolved,  That  the  Board  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to 
adopt  all  prudent  measures  to  give  to  the  heathen  the 
pure  word  uf  God  in  their  own  languages,  and  to  furnish 
their  missionaries  with  all  the  means  in  their  power  to 
make  the  translations  as  exact  a  representation  of  the 
mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  may  be  possible. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  all  the  missionaries  of  the  Board  who 
are,  or  who  shall  be,  engaged  in  translating  the  Scrip- 
tures, be  instructed  to  endeavour,  by  earnest  prayer  and 
diligent  study,  to  ascertain  the  exact  meaning  of  the  ori- 
ginal text ;  to  express  that  meaning  as  exactly  as  the  na- 
ture of  the  languages  into  which  they  shall  translate  the 
Bible  will  permit;  and  to  transfer  no  words  which  are 
capable  of  being  literally  translated.' 

"These  principles  of  action,  adopted  by  the  Baptist 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  acted  upon  by  their  mis- 
sionaries, long  before  any  difficulty  occurred  between  us 
and  the  American  Bible  Society,  must  commend  them- 
selves to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and 
never  can  be  opposed,  we  humbly  conceive,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  and  perpetuating  sectarian  de- 
signs, which  cannot  so  easily  be  sustained  where  the 
Bible  is  translated  faithfully  and  without  concealment. 
2* 


19 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 


hapless  multitudes  of  Burmah  and  other  east- 
ern  nations   are    not   acquainted,   show   that 


"In  his  statement,  the  agent  considered  the  course 
adopted  by  the  American  Bible  Society  towards  us  to  be 
unjust;  because,  when  the  Baptists  became  a  component 
part  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  at  its  first  organiza- 
tion, they  united  with  it  as  Baptists;  nothing'  in  the  terms 
of  the  compact  required  or  implied  a  sacrifice  of  prin- 
ciple; had  this  been  the  case,  a  union  on  our  part  with 
said  Society  would  have  been  impossible.  As  a  denomi- 
nation, we  have  brought  our  full  share  of  capital  and 
labour  to  promote  the  objects  for  which  the  Society  was 
Instituted:  our  bequests,  donations,  and  contributions,  are 
admitted  to  have  been  liberal ;  and  our  missionaries  have 
translated  the  Bible  into  languages  spoken  by  more  than 
one-half  of  the  entire  population  of  the  globe.  After 
having-  laboured  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  Society 
for  twenty  years,  without  having  violated  any  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  original  compact,  or  of  the  constitution,  we 
-are,  by  a  vote  of  the  Society,  and  of  its  managers,  de- 
prived of  all  participation  in  its  funds,  except  on  condi- 
tions which  we  cannot  consistently  and  conscientiously 
adopt.  And  that  we  could  not  submit  to  such  conditions 
without  incurring,  in  our  apprehension,  deep  guilt  in  the 
sight  of  God,  and  be  unfaithful  to  the  souls  of  men,  was 
well  understood  by  the  managers  of  the  Board,  from  the 
statements  of  the  Baptist  members  previously  to  the  pass- 
age of  said  resolution.  A  resolution,  embracing  a  prin- 
ciple of  action  not  recognised  in  the  constitution,  and 
tending  to  exclude  us  from  our  just  rights  to  a  due  pro- 
portion of  the  funds  of  the  institution,  is  a  violation  of  the 
constitutional  compact,  a  virtual  dissolution  of  the  origi- 
nal firm,  and  on  principles  of  law  and  equity,  would 
oblige  the  American  Bible  Society  to  refund  a  proper 
share  of  the  capital  now  in  their  possession.  We  are  also 
under  the  impression  that  their  conduct  towards  us  was 
far  from  being-  kind  and  courteous,  because,  though  we 
were  one  of  the  partners  of  the  concern,  and  therefore 
had  a  just  right  to  a  proper  share  in  the  funds,  at  a  time, 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.  jg 

sectarian  prejudice  has  reached  a  point  where 
it  must  revert  upon  itself,  and  tend  to  defeat 
the  object  it  aimed  to  secure. 

too,  when  the  treasury  was  overflowing',  we  were  ex- 
cluded in  a  penniless  condition,  and  our  protest  against 
these  unjust  proceedings  was  not  even  allowed  to  be 
read ! 

"We  consider  the  proceedings  of  the  American  Bible 
Society  towards  us  to  be  decidedly  of  a  sectarian  character,- 
because,  it  is  well  known  that  all  the  important  ancient 
eastern  versions,  and  many  of  the  most  valuable  modern 
ones,  render  the  Greek  word  baptizo  in  the  same  manner  as 
we  do;  that  is,  they  do  not  transfer  it,  but  faithfully  trans- 
late it,  by  a  word  that  means  to  dip,  or  to  immerse.  The 
versions  of  more  than  one-half  of  Protestant  Christendom, 
at  the  present  day,  are  precisely  of  a  similar  character. 
Among-  these  are  the  Syriac,  the  oldest  existing-  transla- 
tion from  the  original  Greek,  the  Armenian,  Georgian, 
Coptic,  Sahidic,  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  Amharic,  Gothic,  Ger- 
man, Dutch,  Danish,  Swedish,  and  others.  Now,  it  is  a 
well  known  fact  that  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety has  aided,  and  continues  to  aid  in  the  circulation  of 
the  aforesaid  versions;  and  the  American  Bible  Society 
has  circulated,  and  continues  to  circulate,  some  of  these 
versions,  its  resolutions  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
The  question  naturally  arises,  Why  does  it  circulate  the 
Dutch  Bible,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  is  translated  by 
a  word  which  means  to  dip.  and  Luther's  version  of  the 
German  Bible,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  is  rendered  by 
a  word  which  means  to  immerse,  and  yet  refuse  to  aid  in 
the  distribution  of  our  versions,  which  in  so  far  as  baptism 
is  concerned,  are  translated  exactly  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple? We  know  of  no  reason  for  this  difference  in  their 
procedure,  except  such  as  are  of  a  sectarian  character; 
the  Dutch  and  German  versions  were  made  by  Pedobap- 
tists,  and  our  versions  were  made  by  Baptists.  Is  not  this 
sectarianism?  And  is  not  sectarianism  totally  incompati- 
ble with  the  original  design  of  this  noble  institution? 

"  We  entertain  serious  and  insuperable  objections  to  the 


20  MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

In  the  providence  of  God,  it  not  unfrequent- 
ly  happens  that  the  eagerness  of  designing  men 

principles  upon  which  translations  of  the  Bible  are  now  to 
be  constructed,  in  conformity  to  the  resolution  of  the  17th 
Feb.  1836.  It  is  well  known  that  the  American  Bible 
Society  is  composed  of  six  or  eight  denominations,  differ- 
ing- widely  from  each  other  in  church  government,  doc- 
trine, discipline,  and  practice.  Supposing,  then,  a  trans- 
lation is  made,  agreeably  to  the  principles  of  the  English 
version;  at  least  so  far  that  all  the  religious  denominations 
represented  in  this  society,  can,  consistently  with  their 
respective  creeds,  use  and  circulate  said  version  in  their 
several  schools  and  communities.  We  wish  to  know 
what  kind  of  a  version  it  must  be?  We  are  inclined  to 
think  that  it  would  be  a  nondescript,  neither  conformed 
to  the  sacred  originals,  nor  to  the  English  version,  nor  to 
any  other  version  that  ever  appeared  in  the  world.  If 
these  denominations  hold  any  errors,  for  example,  that 
sprinkling  is  baptism,  their  Bible  must  not  condemn  that 
error,  by  giving  a  faithful  translation  of  the  word  baptizo, 
so  as  to  express  the  precise  meaning  of  the  action,  in 
which  baptism  consists;  because  such  a  course  might  not 
be  compatible  with  the  views  and  creeds  of  the  denomina- 
tions of  which  the  society  is  composed;  and  it  might  not 
be  considered  prudent  to  admit  such  a  version  of  the 
Bible  into  their  schools  and  communities,  lest  the  rising 
generation  might  become  convinced  that  sprinkling  is 
rantism,  and  consequently  not  baptism.  The  arguments 
of  a  beloved  brother  in  Alabama,  on  this  subject,  'whose 
praise  is  in  all  the  churches,'  appear  to  us  forcible  and 
irresistible:  'Leaving  the  question,  whether  the  consti- 
tution of  that  society  or  the  nature  of  their  compact  re- 
quires such  a  procedure,  the  procedure  itself  is  directly 
contrary  to  the  established  principle  that  the  Bible  with- 
out note  or  comment,  is  to  be  given  to  the  nations.  1  do 
not  see  how  the  resolution  of  February  17,  1836,  can  be 
defended.  I  do  not  now  speak  of  transferring  the  word 
baptizo,  which  I  think  our  translators  ought  not  to  have 
done,  and  no  modern  translator  ought  to  do;  but  1  refer  to 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.  21 

carries  them  to  such  daring  extremity,  as  to 
overthrow  the  very  object  of  their  ambitious  en- 

the  general  rule  adopted  by  the  American  Bible  Society, 
that  the  Bible  should  be  made  consistent  lull h  the  creeds 
of  the  denominations  represented  in  it.  Shall  the  Bible 
govern  human  opinions,  or  shall  human  opinions  govern 
the  Bible?  Which  of  these  shall  control  and  change  the 
other?  This  is  the  question  on  which  the  Baptists  are 
required  to  take  a  side;  and  I  sincerely  wish  they  were 
all  on  one  side,  as  they  should  he' 

"  We  stated  that  two  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  deceased, 
had  left  bequests  to  the  American  Bible  Society,  from 
which  would  accrue  to  its  funds,  perhaps  not  less  than 
forty-five  thousand  dollars.  Would  these  brethren,  it  was 
asked,  have  left  you  this  money,  if  they  had  believed 
that  you  would,  in  a  few  years,  adopt  a  resolution  to  ex- 
clude from  all  participation  in  the  funds  of  your  institu- 
tion, the  denomination  to  which  they  belonged?  Most 
certainly  they  would  not.  These  bequests  were  un- 
doubtedly made  in  the  full  expectation  that  the  claims  of 
the  Baptist  denomination  would  be  regarded  with  equal 
sacreclness,  as  those  of  other  denominations.  If  this  reso- 
lution be  adopted,  you  deceive  what  were  the  just  expec- 
tations of  the  dead,  as  well  as  of  the  living.  For  if  your 
resolution  passes,  we  shall  be  for  ever  excluded  from  all 
participation  in  the  funds  of  your  society — except  on 
conditions  which  you  know  we  cannot  consistently  and 
conscientiously  adopt.  The  Honourable  Peter  A.  Jay 
and  Judge  W.  Jay,  both  Episcopalians,  and  sons  of  the 
late  Governor  John  Jay,  objected  to  the  passage  of  the 
resolution,  and  proposed  that  a  committee  of  laymen,  sup- 
posed to  be  less  prejudiced  than  clergymen,  should  in- 
vestigate all  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  present  a  report  to 
the  Board.  But  investigation  was  dreaded,  and  they 
voted  down  the  resolution.  On  the  final  passage  of  the 
resolution  to  exclude  the  Baptists  from  all  participation 
in  the  funds  of  the  society,  these  gentlemen  voted  with 
the  Baptists. 

"The  obnoxious  resolution,  the  injustice  of  which  we 


22  MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

deavours.  It  was  thus  that  the  wicked  plot  of 
the  aspiring  Haman  turned  upon  himself,  while 

complain,  was  adopted  by  a"  large  majority  on  the  17th 
February,  1836.  Our  protest  against  it  was  disregarded, 
and  not  even  permitted  to  be  read!  The  society,  at  its 
next  annual  meeting-,  instead  of  nullifying-  the  proceed- 
ings of  its  Board  of  Managers  against  us,  as  justice  re- 
quired, sanctioned  their  doings.  An  appropriation  of 
$5,000  was  voted  to  the  American  Baptist  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions,  on  condition  that  we  would  comply  with 
the  resolution  of  17th  February,  1836,  of  the  injustice  of 
which  we  had  complained,  and  against  which  we  had 
entered  our  protest.  But  the  Baptist  Board  firmly  and 
unanimously  resolved,  not  to  be  influenced  by  the  con- 
sideration of  five  thousand  dollars,  or  any  other  sum,  to 
conceal  from  the  nations  of  the  earth  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  in  an  unknown  tongue,  believing  with  Paul,  'that 
he  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue,  speaketh  not 
unto  men,  but  unto  God;  for  no  man  understandeth  him* 
Our  brethren,  therefore,  concluded  to  adhere  to  the  in- 
structions previously  given  to  their  missionaries — ■  to 
transfer  no  words  capable  of  being  literally  translated;* 
and  further  declared,  'that  this  Board  cannot,  consist- 
ently and  conscientiously,  comply  with  the  conditions  on 
which  appropriations  are  now  made,  and  cannot,  there- 
fore, accept  the  sum  appropriated  by  the  Board  of  Mana- 
gers of  the  17th  March,  1836.' 

"Thus  cut  off'  from  all  participation  in  the  funds  of  the 
society,  on  consistent  principles, — all  aid  absolutely  re- 
fused to  the  circulation  of  our  versions,  except  we  would 
agree  to  conceal  the  doctrine  of  baptism  in  a  foreign 
tongue,  while  other  translations  of  the  Bible  made  by 
Pedobiptists,  in  which  baptizo  is  faithfully  translated  by 
a  word  that  means  to  immerse,  are  bv  said  society  still 
circulated;  we  were  therefore  driven  to  the  necessity  of 
abandoning  the  American  Bible  Society,  or  of  abandon- 
ing our  principles — of  abandoning  truth.  We  could  not 
hesitate  long  which  of  these  courses  we  ought  to  adopt. 
We  abandoned  the  American  Bible  Society.     The  ques- 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.  23 

the  righteous  cause  he  would  fain  destroy,  is 
greatly  promoted.  A  Daniel,  a  servant  of 
the  living  God,  is  brought  alive  from  the  lion's 
den,  and  advanced  to  a  more  distinguished 
prosperity.  Thus,  the  celebrated  and  opulent 
Crassus,  not  content  with  more  than  enough, 
but  by  overstraining  for  Parthian  gold,  loses 
the  object  of  his  ambitious  aim,  and  aids  for- 
tiori now  arose,  shall  the  Baptists  desert  their  faithful 
missionaries,  whose  piety,  diligence,  fidelity,  and  success, 
in  translating-  and  circulating"  the  divine  oracles  among 
the  nations,  have  endeared  them  to  our  hearts,  and  justly 
entitled  them  to  be  considered  among-  the  greatest  bene- 
factors of  the  human  race;  or,  shall  we  aid  them  in  their 
holy  work  of  benevolence,  by  adopting  a  system  of  ope- 
ration that  shall  enable  them  to  prosecute  their  work 
with  renewed  ardour?  This  was  an  important  crisis  in 
our  affairs;  we  felt  that  we  needed  wisdom  from  above; 
and  we  trust  that  to  the  Father  of  Lights  our  eyes  and 
our  hearts  were  directed,  and  we  believe  he  has  guided 
us  into  the  path  of  truth  and  duty.  After  mature  reflec- 
tion and  prayerful  consideration,  it  appears  to  be  the 
wish  of  the  great  body  of  the  denomination  that  we 
should  not  stay  and  linger  as  those  that  are  slothful,  but 
make  haste  to  pursue  the  path  which  divine  providence 
has  marked  out.  A  separate  organization  for  Bible  ope- 
rations appeared  absolutely  necessary  to  sustain  the  work 
which  we  had  undertaken  among-  the  heathen,  who  were 
demanding  from  us  the  word  of  life.  On  the  evening  of 
the  day  that  the  American  Bible  Society  sanctioned  the 
doings  of  their  Board,  in  depriving  us  of  our  just  rights, 
casting-  us  off  penniless  while  their  own  treasury  was 
overflowing-,  Baptist  brethren  and  deleg-ates  from  eleven 
states  of  the  Union  assembled  in  the  Oliver  street  Lec- 
ture Room,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  proceeded  with 
great  unanimity  to  org-anize  The  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society." — Maclay's  Address. 


24  MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS. 

ward,  to  a  more  desirable  felicity,  those  whom 
he  thought  to  make  desolate. 

Thus,  too,  the  managers  of  the  above  named 
Bible  Society,  instead  of  preventing  the  grow- 
ing millions  of  India,  whose  imploring  hands 
were  beginning  to  be  stretched  forth  for  the 
word  of  life,  from  receiving  the  Bible  faith- 
fully translated,  have  at  least  lost  their  party 
aim.  Those  hands  are  now  being  supplied 
with  sevenfold  more  copies  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures than  were  ever  asked  of  that  now  sec- 
tarian society. 

This  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous 
in  our  eyes.  He  knows  how  to  overrule  evil 
for  good. 

Once  more:  the  very  extensive  and  increas- 
ing dissatisfaction  among  the  more  pious  and 
conscientious  members  of  Pedobaptist  com- 
munities, respecting  sprinkling  for  baptism, 
and  infants  for  subjects,  betokens  the  coming 
of  that  day,  when  this  divine  ordinance  of  the 
Christian  church  shall  be  restored  to  its  primi- 
tive order  ;  setting  forth  in  its  own  most  lively 
and  expressive  emblem  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  the  body  of  our  Saviour;  and,  con- 
sequently, the  glorious  resurrection  of  the  bo- 
dies of  all  them  that  truly  believe  in  him. 

From  these,  and  other  indications,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  which  your  own  informa- 
tion can  supply,  it  must  appear  evident  that 
the   times   are   pregnant   with   great   events. 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES,  &c.  25 

Section  II. 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

That  period,  it  is  devoutly  hoped,  is  near  at 
hand,  when  all  the  followers  of  Christ  shall 
seek  to  divest  themselves  of  every  vestige  of 
error ;  shall  adopt  the  Bible  as  the  only  standard 
of  evangelical  truth;  and  shall,  with  a  cheerful 
heart,  willingly  apply  those  acknowledged  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation  to  an  understanding  of 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  which  are 
received  and  applied  for  the  understanding  of 
every  other  Bible  truth,  that  we  may  all  attain 
to  a  uniformity  of  sentiment  and  practice  in  the 
church  of  Christ. 

For  let  it  be  particularly  remarked  that,  un- 
til we  all  adopt  the  same  principles  of  inter- 
preting the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  apply  those 
acknowledged  principles  alike  to  every  part 
of  the  sacred  volume,  to  one  as  well  as  to  an- 
other of  the  doctrines  of  the  cross,  there  need 
be  no  surprise  that  so  many  different  sects  and 
detached  parties  should  obtain  among  profes- 
sing Christians. 

It  can  avail  nothing  for  all  parties  to  appeal 
to  the  Bible,  as  their  supreme  authority,  while 
each  one  feels  himself  at  liberty  to  accommo- 
date the  sacred  text  to  his  own  peculiar  views. 

The  more  evangelical  denominations  profess 
to  acknowledge  but  one  standard  of  divine  au- 
thority in  matters  of  religious  worship ;  namely* 
3 


26  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP 

the  Bible.  And  there  are  certain  obvious  and 
acknowledged  laws  by  -which  the  language  of 
the  Bible  is  to  be  inlerpreted,  in  order  to  come 
to  that  distinct  sense,  which  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  the  sacred  penmen,  intended  to  convey. 

Both  of  these  considerations  should  be  borne 
in  mind  by  all  those  who  seek  an  acquaintance 
with  the  inspired  volume.  As  they  come  to 
an  acquaintance  with  one,  so,  by  the  same  laws, 
are  they  to  seek  acquaintance  with  every  truth 
and  ordinance  of  our  holy  religion. 

Their  articles  of  faith  and  practice  must  be 
based,  not  upon  obscure  passages  and  infe- 
rential testimony,  but  upon  those  scriptures, 
the  sense  of  which  is  plainly  revealed  and  dis- 
tinctly known  by  correct  principles  of  inter- 
pretation. 

If  all  will  abide  by  these  tests  of  what,  shall 
be  incorporated  in  their  religious  belief,  party 
distinction  shall  soon  disappear,  and  delightful 
harmony  shall  as  soon  be  restored  to  the  church. 
It  remains  with  every  individual  to  say  whe- 
ther such  a  union  shall  obtain  among  the  peo- 
ple of  God  ;  whether  h\s  faith,  practice  and  ex- 
ample shall  all  contribute  to  unite  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High. 

There  are  reasons  the  most  cogent  why  all 
who  love  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ, 
should  seek  to  attain  to  that  oneness  of  faith 
and  practice  in  things  of  religion,  for  which 
the  Redeemer  prayed,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel  inculcates.      Need  you  now,  for  the 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION.  27 

first  time,  be  made  acquainted  with  the  unhappy 
consequences  every  where  manifest,  because 
of  the  divided  state  of  the  Christian  world? 

Thousands  are  excusing  themselves  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  because  of  the  disunion 
among  the  people  of  God  !  Nor  can  it  better 
the  Christian  cause  to  say  such  an  excuse  is 
unreasonable,  while  Christians  have  the  power 
and  do  not  apply  it  to  remove  the  stumbling 
stone. 

Again.  From  the  divided  state  of  the 
Christian  world,  many  have  very  improperly 
inferred  that  there  must  be  a  great  want  of 
clearness  and  perspicuity  in  the  sacred  text; 
that  the  Saviour,  when  imparting  instructions 
of  the  first  importance  to  men,  employed 
words  of  such  doubtful  import,  as  forbids  our 
coming  to  a  unity  of  sentiment  and  practice. 
But  can  we,  who  profess  to  be  the  friends  of 
the  Redeemer,  admit  so  unjust  a  reflection  to 
be  cast  upon  Him,  who  "  spake  as  never  man 
spake  V*  Are  there  not  those  who  shall  dare  to 
hold  up  to  deserved  rebuke  an  opinion  so  allied 
with  the  grossest  infidelity,  and  so  perfectly  at 
war  with  every  attribute  of  the  wise  and  com- 
passionate Saviour? 

The  different  opinions  which  have  obtained 
among  religious  sects,  have  not  their  origin  in 
any  invincible  obscurity  in  the  Scriptures;  but 
'partly  by  pleading  other  sources  of  authority 
than  the  Scriptures,  and  partly  by  adopting 
wrong  principles  of  interpretation. 


28  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF 

The  more  common  sources  of  error,  or  the 
main  causes  why  some  Christians,  enjoying 
the  same  advantages  as  others,  for  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, are  betrayed  into  mistaken  views  respect- 
ing the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  the  gospel, 
may  be  briefly  comprehended  as  follows. 

The  pride  and  selfishness  of  man;  an  im- 
proper reliance  upon  the  reputed  correctness 
of  others'  opinions,  without  strictly  examining 
for  themselves;*  the  influence  of  early  erro- 
neous instruction,  and  the  force  of  custom, 
which,  when  combined,  powerfully  control 
even  the  sincere,  binding  the  understanding, 
and  chaining  it  down  to  a  degree  of  ignorance 
and  prejudice  the  most  incredible,  were  it  not 
for  the  unquestionable  testimony  of  the  facts 
themselves;  a  prevailing  desire  to  make  the 
Scriptures  speak  that  sense  which  is  held  by 
some  favourite  party,  or  friends,  rather  than 
embrace  the  obvious  meaning  which  the  in- 
spired writer  intended  to  reveal  ;  daring  to 
trifle  with  conscience,  suppressing  her  con- 
victions of  duty  and  truth,  on  the  ground  that 
the  thing  required  is  not  indispensable  to  sal- 
vation, and    therefore   of  little    consequence, 

*  St.  Basil  has  the  following  very  judicious  remarks: 
"The  hearers  that  are  instructed  in  the  Scriptures 
must  examine  the  doctrines  of  their  teachers;  they  must 
receive  those  things  which  are  agreeable  to  Scripture, 
and  reject  what  are  contrary  to  it."  In  Moralium  Re- 
gula,  72. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION.  29 

quite  a  matter  of  indifference,  whether  it  be  re- 
ceived and  obeyed  or  not;  a  disinclination,  if 
not  a  settled  determination,  to  hear  and  read 
only  such  instructions  as  shall  favour  their 
own  preconceived  opinions,  and  build  up  the 
party  to  which  they  chance  to  belong;  a  con- 
founding of  the  literal  and  figurative  sense  of 
Scripture;  an  attempt  to  support  some  favour- 
ite sentiment  by  probabilities,  suppositions,  in- 
ferences, and  analogy,  where  there  is  no  plain 
command,  nor  yet  example  for  any  such  sen- 
timent. 

These  are  the  more  usual  sources  of  error 
in  doctrine  and  practice  among  those  who  ac- 
knowledge the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  pro- 
fess to  take  it  as  their  guide.  So  long  as  these 
things  exist,  we  can  never  come  to  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace.  It  becomes 
every  one,  therefore,  who  desires  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  Zion,  not  only  to  adopt  the  Bible 
as  his  only  authority  in  matters  of  religion, 
but  also  to  see  to  it,  that  he  does  not  make  the 
Bible  speak  what  it  does  not  contain;  that  he 
gives  to  every  part  of  the  word  of  God  that 
obvious  sense  which  the  Holy  Ghost  indited  in 
the  minds  of  the  sacred  penmen  :  "  For  what- 
soever is  more  than  these  cometh  of  evil." 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten  by  the  Biblical  student, 
that  substantial  interpretations  of  the  word  of 
God  must  rest  upon  their  own  intrinsic  evi- 
dence; in  the  use  of  words  employed;  in  phi- 
lological or  grammatical  construction;  in 
3# 


30  THE  PROPER  SOURCE  OF  INFORMATION 

agreement  with  the  immediate  context ;  and 
in  perfect  harmony  with  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

Whoever  shall  carry  out  his  interpretations 
upon  principles  like  these,  shall  see  and  know 
their  practical  utility  in  acquiring  that  positive 
sense  which  the  inspired  writers  intended  to 
communicate. 


Section  III. 

THE    PROPER   SOURCE   OF    INFORMATION    IN   RESPECT    TO 
CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

As  our  inquiry  respects  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  we  shall  do  well  to  bear  in  mind  the 
acknowledged  principles  of  interpretation ;  and 
consider  also,  that  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
alone,  is  our  only  authentic  record  in  matters 
of  religious  faith  and  practice.  From  this  un- 
erring source  we  must  draw  arguments  in 
support  of  our  belief.  And  let  it  be  further 
remarked,  that  we  are  to  place  no  implicit  re- 
liance upon  the  writings  and  sayings  of  unin- 
spired men,  when  their  opinions  are  not  sup- 
ported by  plain  passages  of  inspired  truth.  No 
council  or  body  of  men,  however  learned  or 
pious,  is  to  be  quoted  as  substantial  proof  in 
support  of  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of 
Christ.* 

*  Cromwell,  before  a  convocation  of  bishops  and  min- 
isters in  England,  in  1536,  had  acutencss  and  valour  enough 


IN  RESPECT  TO  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  g  \ 

Human  testimony,  when  clear  and  undis- 
puted, is  to  be  respected  as  collateral  evidence; 
but  never  trusted  as  our  infallible  guide.  There 
are  none  of  the  sayings  of  uninspired  men  be- 
fore, nor  subsequent  to  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  upon  which  we  can  safely  repose 
our  confidence,  and  obtain  the  satisfaction  we 
seek. 

We  are  not  to  test  the  truth  of  the  Scrip- 
tures by  what  men  say  and  think;  but  to  try 
men  and  the  sentiments  they  hold,  by  what 
the  Scriptures  teach.  "To  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them." 
Who  does  not  admire  the  conduct  of  a  noble 
lord  while  awaiting  advices  from  his  king, 
who,  when  informed  by  the  expected  messen- 
ger what  some  of  the  noblemen  said  touching 
the  point  at  issue,  instantly  replied,  "  tell  me  not 
what  the  noblemen  say,  they  are  my  equals;  I  wish 

TO  KNOW  WHAT  MY  KING  HAS  SAID  ?"      Moreover, 

to  observe,  "That  it  was  his  majesty's  pleasure  that  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  church  should  be  reformed 
by  the  rules  of  Scripture,  and  that  nothing-  should  be 
maintained  which  did  not  rest  on  that  authority;  for  it 
was  absurd,  since  the  Scriptures  were  acknowledged  to 
contain  the  laws  of  religion,  that  recourse  should  be  had 
to  glosses  or  the  decrees  of  popes,  rather  than  to  them." 
—Burnet's  Hist.  ofRefor.  vol.  i.  p.  214,  "  Happy,"  said 
Mr.  Brooks,  "  Happy  had  it  been,  if  the  Reformers  of 
the  Church  of  England  had  invariably  adhered  to  this 
sacred  principle." — Lives  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 
Happy  for  the  church  and  the  world  now,  did  Christians 
act  upon  such  a  principle. 


32   THE  PROPER  SOURCE  OF  INFORMATION,  &c. 

we  are  indebted  purely  to  the  authority  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  practice  of  his  illustrious 
harbinger,  John,  and  the  inspired  apostles  for 
any  certain  knowledge  of  the  rite  of  baptism. 

This  institution,  as  an  ordinance  of  divine 
worship,  was  unknown  to  the  world  till  the 
opening  of  that  auspicious  day,  whose  increas- 
ing "light  shall  be  seven-fold,  as  the  light  of 
seven  days." 

No  writer,  sacred  or  profane,  ever  makes 
the  least  mention  of  it  before  John  the  Baptist, 
who  commenced  his  ministry  only  six  months 
before  he  administered  the  sacred  rite  to  our 
blessed  Lord  in  the  river  Jordan.  There  is 
no  trace  to  be  found  of  this  institution  in  the 
Old  Testament;  not  the  least  shadow  of  it  in 
any  of  the  rabbinical  writings  prior  to  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah,  nor,  indeed,  till  many 
years  after  his  ascension  to  glory. 

We  may  not,  therefore,  go  back  to  the  Old 
Testament  for  any  direct  instruction  upon  this 
part  of  instituted  worship.  There  is  nothing 
there  that  teaches,  typifies,  or  prefigures  it  in 
any  way  whatever. 

Baptism,  then,  being  an  ordinance  peculiar 
to  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  rule  of  our  duty 
respecting  it  must  be  sought  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament exclusively.  And  when  we  turn  to 
this  source  of  information,  w7e  find  no  appoint- 
ment of  heaven  more  clearly  revealed  than 
that  of  baptism. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  33 


Section  IV. 

THE    ORIGIN   OF    CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM  ;     NOT    OF    MEN    BUT 
OF    GOD. 

If  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  are 
our  only  direct  source  of  information  respect- 
ing this  positive  institution  of  the  christian 
church,  and  if  John  the  Baptist  was  the  first 
who  ever  taught  and  administered  the  holy 
rite,  we  ask,  as  did  the  Saviour  himself,  "The 
baptism  of  Jolin^  was  it  from  heaven,  or  of 
men?"  Now  upon  this  question  the  christian 
world  is  divided.  Our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
contend  that  John  conceived  the  idea  of  bap- 
tism from  the  previous  practices  of  men. 
That  he  took  up  an  old  custom  which  he 
found  among  the  Jews  and  adapted  it  to  his 
purpose,  while  preaching  in  the  land  of  Judea. 
"That  baptism  had  been  both  known  and 
received  in  most  frequent  use  among  the 
Jews;  and  for  the  very  same  end  as  it  now 
obtains  among  Christians,  namely,  that  by  it 
proselytes  might  be  admitted  into  the  church; 
and  hence  it  was  called  baptism  for  prose- 
lytism.  You  see  baptism  inseparably  joined 
to  the  circumcision  of  proselytes.  There  was, 
indeed,  some  little  distance  of  time,  but  cer- 
tainly baptism  ever  followed.  We  acknow- 
ledge, indeed,  that  circumcision  was  plainly  of 
divine  institution;  but  by  whom  baptism  was 
instituted,  is  doubtful.     And  yet  it  is  worthy 


34  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  observation,  our  Saviour  rejected  circum- 
cision and  retained  the  appendix  baptism." 
Light  foot. 

Baptists  dissent  from  this  opinion,  and  main- 
tain that  John  received  his  knowledge  of  this 
institution  direct  from  heaven,  and  adminis- 
tered it  by  divine  appointment. 

They  deny  that  baptism,  as  a  rite,  had  any 
existence  before  the  ministry  of  John,  and 
challenge  the  world  to  prove  the  contrary. 

We  affirm,  without  the  least  hesitation, 
because  scripture  sustains  us  in  the  affirmation, 
that  this  ordinance  originated  in  the  counsels 
of  divine  wisdom,  and  was  made  known  first 
to  John,  whose  ministry,  according  to  Mark, 
was  "  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  c.  i.  1—5.  The  law 
and  the  prophets  continued  until,  or  up  to  the 
time  that  John  appeared,  since  that  time  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  preached.  Luke  xvi.  16; 
Mat.  ii.  12,  15.  Says  Mr.  Henry,  "See  what 
sure  grounds  John  went  upon  in  his  ministry 
and  baptism.  He  did  not  run  without  sending; 
God  sent  him  to  baptize.  He  had  a  warrant 
from  heaven  for  what  he  did.  God  gave  him 
both  his  mission  and  his  message;  both  his 
credentials  and  instructions."  Expos,  on  John 
i.  29—36. 

The  Greeks,  nor  yet  the  Jews,  knew  nothing 
of  baptism  as  a  divinely  appointed  rite,  nor 
did  any  such  practice  prevail  among  them. 

The  Jews  had  certain  t  iverse  washings  im- 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  35 

posed  upon  them  until  the  time  of  reformation, 
but  they  had  no  institution  like  baptism.  No- 
thing that  in  any  way  resembled  it,  farther 
than  a  person  bathing  himself,  or  dipping  his 
arm,  hands  or  fingers  into  water.  "And 
many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables."  Mark  vii.  4. 
But  there  was  no  more  resemblance  between 
these  diverse  washings  of  the  Jews  and  the 
baptism  of  John,  than  there  is  between  the 
universal  custom  among  all  nations  to  bathe 
and  wash  their  persons,  as  also  their  culinary 
dishes,  and  the  baptismal  rite. 

And  it  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  what- 
ever was  ceremonial  in  these  diverse  washings 
among  the  Jews,  was  mostly  traditional,  tole- 
rated only  as  an  indifferent  practice,  and 
highly  culpable  when  interfering  in  the  least 
with  the  commands  of  God,  or  any  part  of 
religious  worship.  Mark  vii.  7 — 9.  Nothing 
can,  therefore,  be  inferred  from  these  Jewish 
washings,  which  in  the  least  identifies  them 
with  the  sacred  and  beautiful  rite  of  baptism. 

Any  person  who  will  take  the  pains  to  exa- 
mine into  this  subject,  for  himself,  shall  be 
more  than  satisfied  that  there  is  not  the  least 
shadow  of  evidence,  whatever,  that  the  Jews 
ever  had  a  custom  resembling  that  of  baptism. 

The  highly  gifted  and  learned  Dr.  Owen, 
than  whom  few  men  have  acquired  a  more 
accurate    acquaintance   with    those   parts    of 


36 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Jewish  history  affecting  Christianity,  observes, 
"  The  institution  of  the  rite  of  baptism  is  no 
where  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament. 
There  is  no  example  of  it  in  those  ancient 
records;  nor  was  it  ever  used  in  the  admis- 
sion of  proselytes  while  the  Jewish  church 
continued.  No  mention  of  it  occurs  in  Philo, 
in  Josephus,  in  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  nor  in 
the  Evangelical  history.  This  rabbinical  opi- 
nion, therefore,  owes  its  rise  to  the  Tanner ae, 
or  Anti-Mishnical  doctors,  after  the  destruction 
of  their  city.  The  opinion  of  some  learned 
men,  therefore,  about  the  transferring  of  a 
Jewish  baptismal  rite  (which,  in  reality,  did 
not  exist,)  by  the  Lord  Jesus  for  the  use  of  his 
disciples,  is' destitute  of  all  probability."  See 
his  Theol.  L.  5;  Heb."  vol.  i.  272,  and  Orig. 
Nat.  of  Churches,  pp.  36,  39. 

The  learned  Venema,  says,  "  Part  of  John's 
office  consisted  in  baptizing — an  external  rite, 
then  in  a  particular  manner  appointed  of  God, 
and  not  used  before:'  Eccl.  Hist.  torn.  3,  Lee. 
1,  §  5.  See  more  in  Benson's  "Public  Wor- 
ship of  the  First  Christians,"  chap.  5,  §  2. 

After  such  concessions,  let  no  one  attempt 
the  gratuitous  and  visionary  project  of  deriving 
John's  baptism  from  a  Jewish  custom,  for  it 
is  certain  that  no  such  custom  ever  existed 
among  the  Jews;  nor  is  there  the  least  men- 
tion of  it  until  long  after  John  had  entered 
into  rest.  Proselyte  baptism  has  no  other 
than  an  ideal  existence ;  it  is  a  mere  figment 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


37 


of  artifice,  no  where  to  be  found  but  in  the 
picture  of  the  imagination,  as  conceived  by- 
designing  men,  as  Maimonides,  Lightfoot  and 
others. 

Let  us  look  a  little  further  into  the  correct- 
ness of  this  position.  Had  any  such  practice 
as  proselyte  baptism,  been  associated  with  the 
Jewish  religion,  how  shall  we  account  for  no 
mention  being  made  of  it  in  our  holy  writings; 
especially  where  every  part  of  instituted  wor- 
ship, among  the  Jews,  is  narrated  with  such 
particular  exactness?  The  Bible  law  for  the 
admission  of  proselytes  is  explicit,  See  Exod. 
xii.  48,  but  it  makes  not  the  least  mention  of 
baptism.  This  law  is  carried  out  into  prac- 
tice, as  in  the  cases  of  Rahab,  Ruth  and  others 
who  were  proselyted  to  Judaism,  and  yet 
there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  such 
converts  were  ever  baptized.  See  Joshua  vi. 
25  ;  Ruth  i.  &c. 

Neither  Philo  Judasus,  whose  valuable  works 
contain  several  treatises,  highly  illustrative  of 
the  Hebrew  scriptures,  nor  yet  Flavius  Jose- 
phus,  the  renow7ned  historian  of  the  Jews,  both 
of  whom  lived  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
wrote  concerning  the  reception  of  heathen 
converts  to  Judaism,  has  one  word  respecting 
proselyte  baptism.  How  shall  we  reconcile 
this  strange  omission  with  the  accredited 
fidelity  of  these  writers,  if  a  part  of  the  cere- 
monial worship  of  the  Jews  consisted  in  bap- 
tizing converts  from  other  nations  ? 
4 


3g  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Josephus  says,  "Two  great  men  came  to 
me  out  of  the  region  of  Trachonitis,  and  when 
the  Jews  would  force  them  to  be  circumcised, 
if  they  would  stay  among  them,  I  would  not 
permit  them  to  have  any  force  put  upon  them. 
And  when  I  had  pacified  the  multitude,  I  pro- 
vided for  the  men  that  were  come  to  us  what- 
soever it  was  they  wanted,  according  to  their 
usual  way  of  living."  See  his  Autobiography, 
sect.  23. 

Here  you  will  observe,  the  Jews  demanded 
of  these  proselytes  from  Paganism  that  they 
should  submit  to  be  circumcised,  but  did  not 
so  much  as  intimate  any  thing  about  their 
being  baptized. 

Added  to  which,  history  informs  us,  that  the 
famous  Acquila,  of  the  second  century,  when 
proselyted  to  Judaism,  was  circumcised,  but 
makes  no  mention  about  his  ever  being  bap- 
tized. 

And  what  is  still  more  surprising,  if  possible, 
is  the  fact  that,  the  Mishnah,  which  literally 
signifies  the  oral  law  of  the  Jews,  composed 
about  A.  D.  150,  and  highly  valued  as  a  faith- 
ful digest  of  Jewish  customs — any  way  expla- 
natory of  the  writings  of  Moses,  and  held  in 
high  estimation,  as  a  standard  work  in  their 
schools  of  learning,  makes  no  mention  whatever 
of  proselyte  baptism. 

Moreover,  the  Jerusalem  and  Babylonian 
Gemaras,  or  Commentaries  on  the  Mishnah, 
written,  the  one  in  the  fourth  and  the  other  in 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM-  39 

the  fifth  century,  and  regarded,  when  appended 
to  the  venerated  Mishnah,  as  forming  a  perfect 
work  on  Jewish  rites  and  customs,  have  not 
one  syllable  respecting  the  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes from  pagan  worship.  And  I  most  deli- 
berately declare  unto  you,  my  friends,  that  no 
such  practice  did  ever  obtain  among  the  Jews, 
until  some  hundred  years  subsequent  to  the 
death  of  the  Evangelist  John,  the  last  of  all 
the  apostles  of  our  Lord. 

And  yet,  as  strange  as  it  must  appear,  an 
attempt  is  being  made  by  professing  Christians, 
to  identify  that  holy  rite  which  John  the  Bap- 
tist administered  to  repenting  and  believing 
Jews,  with  a  mere  imaginary  custom,  having 
no  other  than  a  fancied  existence. 

It  is  pitiful,  in  the  extreme,  that  our  pedo- 
baptist  brethren  should  attempt  to  class  the 
baptism  which  John  administered  with  any 
mere  Jewish  custom,  and,  especially  so,  when 
not  a  Jewish  practice,  but  some  notion  of  the 
fancy  is  made  the  model  of  that  sacred  rite, 
to  sanction  which  the  Son  of  God  yielded  sub- 
mission, saying,  "  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteousness"  or,  as  Dr.  Campbell  renders 
it,  "Thus  ought  we  to  ratify  every  institution." 
How  exceedingly  painful,  when  so  much  is 
doing  to  weaken  the  force  of  religious  truth  by 
the  infidel  and  the  sceptic,  when  the  enemies 
of  the  cross  are  numerous  and  daring  beyond 
example,  that  any  body  of  Christians  should  suf- 
fer their  prejudices,  in  favour  of  some  chosen 


40  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

scheme,  to  carry  them  so  far,  as  to  entertain  the 
most  distant  wish  that  the  holy  rite,  in  com- 
pliance with  which  our  Saviour  was  laid  be- 
neath the  waves  of  the  Jordan,  should  not  be 
respected  and  imitated  as  a  Gospel  ordinance! 

All  this  desperate  effort  is  put  forth  to  avoid 
the  convincing  example  of  our  Saviour's  im- 
mersion in  Jordan.  To  get  around  so  plain 
an  instance  of  believers'  baptism,  as  that  ad- 
ministered by  John  to  the  penitent  and  believ- 
ing Jews,  a  thrust  is  made  at  the  vitality  of 
that  ordinance,  which  is  said  to  be  "  the  coun- 
sel of  GocV 

Although  the  hope  of  our  pedobaptist  friends 
to  demolish  John's  baptism,  as  a  christian  or- 
dinance, is  a  forlorn  one;  yet,  should  they  suc- 
ceed, what  would  they  gain?  Nothing,  abso- 
lutely nothing ! 

I  am  sure  that  few  of  our  pedobaptist 
brethren  have  examined  this  subject  in  a  pro- 
per light,  and  under  a  sense  of  the  fearful 
responsibility  which  rests  upon  them. 

Have  they  ever  considered  that  the  liberty 
they  have  taken  with  John's  baptism  in  iden- 
tifying it  with  a  Jewish  custom,  is  casting  the 
severest  reflections  upon  John,  and  inveighing 
in  a  fearful  manner  against  the  character  of 
the  Son  of  God  ? 

For  could  it  be  demonstrated  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  a  christian  ordinance,  but  a 
Jewish  practice  of  admitting  proselytes  from 
Paganism  to  Jewish  privileges,  then  native 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


41 


Jews  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  for  this  would 
be  treating  them  as  proselytes  from  Paganism. 
And  last  of  all,  ought  Jesus  to  be  thus  treated ! 
I  could  sooner  believe  that  John  was  an  im- 
postor, than  admit  that  he  baptized  so  many 
Jews,  and  especially  the  immaculate  Jesus, 
after  the  example  of  pagan  proselytes.  Nor 
was  such  a  thing  possible.  Nothing  could  be 
more  revolting  to  the  feelings  of  a  Jew,  famed 
for  his  wonted  tenacity,  than  to  be  treated  as 
one  converted  from  heathenish  superstition 
and  idolatry. 

Nor  would  Jesus,  the  long  expected  Messiah, 
have  so  unnecessarily  excited  the  prejudices 
of  the  Jews  against  himself,  as  to  appear  in 
the  light  of  a  pagan  just  coming  over  from 
idolatry.  This  would  illy  comport  with  his 
being  "  born  king  of  the  Jews."  It  was  of  the 
utmost  importance  that  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
should  be  traced  up  to  David  through  a  Jewish 
ancestry,  because  the  promise  had  been  made 
that  the  Messiah  should  be  of  that  family.  It 
would,  therefore,  have  been  impossible  to  con- 
vince a  Jew  that  Jesus  was  their  promised 
Messiah,  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  "  he 
was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David."  The 
Saviour  could  not,  therefore,  with  any  sense 
of  propriety,  have  weakened  the  force  of  such 
evidence  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  as  should 
convince  them  that  he  had,  in  a  direct  line, 
Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  and  David, 

the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel,  for  his  illustrious 

4# 


42  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ancestors.  He  could  not  fail  of  weakening 
such  evidence,  and  of  giving  the  Jews  just 
ground  for  exasperation  against  himself,  should 
he  submit  to  a  practice  known  and  regarded 
by  the  Jews  only  as  an  act  of  introducing 
proselyted  pagans  into  Jewish  privileges. 

The  very  erudite  Carpzovius  has  well  re- 
marked, "  We  cannot  be  persuaded  that  the 
baptism  of  proselytes  was  prior  to  the  baptism 
of  John  and  of  Christ.  For  the  testimonies 
produced  are  either  from  a  following  age  or  of 
doubtful  interpretation,  and  applied  contrary  to 
the  design  of  their  authors,  as  a  bare  inspection 
of  them  will  show.  The  subject  being  ex- 
amined with  accuracy,  it  will  appear  that  for 
an  article  of  such  weight,  a  rite  of  such  great 
necessity,  to  have  been  involved  in  silence  for 
so  many  ages,  without  any  urgent  reason,  ex- 
ceeds all  probability.  But  supposing,  though 
we  do  not  admit,  that  the  bathing  of  the  pro- 
selytes was  in  use  when  the  new  dispensation 
commenced,  yet  it  remains  firm  and  certain, 
that  the  sacrament  of  baptism  has  nothing  an- 
swerable to  the  baptism  of  proselytes;  nor 
was  it  derived  from  that  rite,  but  was  immedi- 
ately appointed  of  God.  For  as  John  was 
immediately  sent  of  God  to  baptize,  so  Christ 
introduced  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  not  from 
that  of  the  rabbies  for  the  admission  of  prose- 
lytes ;  but  from  the  most  wise  counsel  of  God, 
from  the  bosom  of  the  Father."  Apparat. 
Hist.  Crit.  Anti.  Soc.  Annotat.  pp.  49,  50. 


CHRIST'S  SANCTION  OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM.  43 


Section  V. 

CHRIST  DID  NOT  SUBMIT  TO  BAPTISM,  AS  AN  INDUC- 
TION INTO  THE  PRIESTLY  OFFICE  ;  BUT  HEREBY  HE 
GAVE  SANCTION  AND  VALIDITY  TO  JOHN'S  BAPTISM, 
AS    A    PERPETUAL    ORDINANCE    OF    DIVINE    WORSHIP. 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  tell  us  that  "Christ 
condescended  to  be  baptized,  and  it  was  ad- 
ministered to  him  by  John,  upon  the  very  same 
principles  on  which  the  priests  were  dedicated 
to  their  office.  It  was  necessary  to  justify  the 
counsels  of  Divine  Wisdom  in  framing  the  law 
of  Moses,  that  the  Messiah  should  recognise 
its  divine  institution,  and  sanction  its  ordi- 
nances, by  observing  its  rites  in  his  own  per- 
son."    Bloomfield,  on  Matt.  iii.  13. 

"  Our  Lord  represented  the  high  priest,  and 
was  to  be  the  high  priest  over  the  house  of 
God ;  now,  as  the  high  priest  was  initiated 
into  his  office  by  washing  and  anointing,  so 
must  Christ ;  and  hence  he  was  baptized, 
washed,  and  anointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Thus  he  fulfilled  the  righteous  ordinance  of 
his  initiation  into  the  office  of  high  priest" 
Adam  Clarke,  on  Matt.  iii.  15. 

Now  you  will  particularly  observe,  that  here 
it  is  positively  declared,  that  "  Christ's  baptism 
was  his  initiation  into  the  office  of  high  priest; 
that  baptism  was  administered  to  Christ  upon 
the  very  same  principles  on  which  priests  vjere 
dedicated  to  their  office ;  that  Christ9 s  baptism 


44 


CHRIST'S  SANCTION 


was  in  justification  of  the  wisdom  of  God  in 
framing  the  law  of  Moses,  in  recognition  of 
the  institution  of  that  law,  and  in  sanction  of 
its  ordinances ;  and  that  Christ  observed  the 
rites  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  his  own  person. 

Now  one  and  all  of  these  assertions  are  per- 
fectly groundless.  Not  one  of  them  can  abide  the 
test  of  scripture  examination.  And  one  cannot 
but  deplore  the  weakness  of  even  great  minds, 
to  which  the  above  assertions  form  a  fair  index. 
After  so  many  examples  of  human  imbecility, 
we  ought  to  have  learned  not  to  trust  any  man 
in  matters  of  religion ;  but  to  go  ourselves  to 
the  Bible,  that  unerring  guide,  with  which  the 
blessed  God  has  furnished  us,  and  there  have 
a  thus  saith  the  Lord  for  our  faith  and  practice. 
It  may  be,  that  those  who  make  assertions,  so 
untenable,  have  been  betrayed  into  the  mis- 
taken idea  by  the  supposed  coincidence  be- 
tween the  age  of  the  Saviour  at  the  time  of 
his  baptism,  and  the  age  of  priests  at  the  time 
of  their  being  inducted  into  office. 

On  Luke  iii.  23,  "  And  Jesus  himself  began 
to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,"  Dr.  A.  Clarke 
observes,  "  This  was  the  age  required  by  the 
law,  to  which  the  priests  must  arrive  before 
they  could  be  installed  in  their  office."  Dr. 
Whitby  remarks,  on  the  same  text,  that  "  Our 
Lord  entered  on  his  office  in  the  thirtieth  year 
of  his  age ;  and  this  was  the  age  appointed  for 
the  Levites  to  begin  the  service  of  the  sanctuary." 

Now   admitting   the  supposed   coincidence, 


OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM.  45 

that  the  Jewish  priests  and  Christ  entered 
upon  their  official  duties  at  the  age  of 
thirty  years,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that 
Christ,  by  the  act  of  being  baptized,  was  in- 
ducted into  the  priestly  office,  nor  that  John's 
baptism  was  the  same  as  the  washing  of  a 
priest  at  his  consecration. 

A  mere  coincidence,  or  agreement  of  circum- 
stances, however  perfect,  is  no  proof.  Nor 
does  the  fact,  that  great  and  good  men  have 
resorted  to  such  evidence,  in  support  of  their 
favourite  creeds,  substantiate  such  testimony 
in  the  judgment  of  a  judicious  and  wise  inter- 
preter of  scripture. 

We  read  of  a  candlestick  with  seven  lamps, 
and  a  house  with  seven  pillars,  but  shall  we 
conclude  that  the  seven  pillars  are  the  seven 
lamps?  And  yet,  so  far  as  coincidence  is 
concerned,  we  may  as  well  draw  such  a  con- 
clusion as  to  infer  that  Christ's  baptism  was 
his  initiation  into  the  priesthood,  because 
priests  were  consecrated  to  their  office  when 
at  the  age  of  thirty  years.  Such  reasoning 
illy  suits  the  dignity  and  holiness  of  a  divine 
revelation. 

But  let  us  inquire  a  little  more  particularly 
respecting  this  coincidence. 

Is  there  any  law  in  the  Bible  which  required 
that  priests  should  not  be  consecrated  to  the 
priestly  office,  until  they  had  arrived  at  the  age 
of  thirty  years  ? 

Such  a  law  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  the 


4(5  CHRIST'S  SANCTION 

Saviour,  nor  for  some  hundred  years  before 
the  Messiah's  advent. 

When  the  Lord  had  accepted  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  in  exchange  for  the  first-born  of  the  fa- 
milies of  Israel  who  were  preserved  from  the 
hand  of  the  destroying  angel  in  Egypt,  and 
hitherto  reserved  for  the  service  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, when  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  accepted 
and  devoted  to  the  sacred  ministry,  a  special 
precept  was  enacted  restraining  the  Kohath- 
ites,  the  Gershonites,  and  the  Merarites,  who 
constituted  the  common  order  of  priests,  from 
entering  upon  the  functions  of  the  priesthood 
until  they  were  of  the  age  of  thirty  years. 
Numb.  iii.  41  ;  iv.  2,  3,  22,  23,  29,  30." 

But  this  law  was  to  continue  only  for  a  li- 
mited and  brief  period,  probably  no  longer 
than  the  time  required  in  proportioning  the 
Levites  to  their  respective  services,  for  their 
number  was  twenty-two  thousand  three  hun- 
dred, of  whom  eifjht  thousand  five  hundred 
and  eighty  were  effective  men,  able  to  enter 
immediately  upon  the  active  duties  of  the 
priesthood. 

What  renders  it  certain,  that  the  law,  re- 
quiring the  Levites  to  be  thirty  years  old  when 
they  entered  the  ministry,  was  intended  for 
special  purposes^  and  designed  to  continue  only 
for  a  limited  space  of  time,  is  the  fact  that, 
during  the  same  year,  and  probably  the  same 
month,  the  Lord  informs  Moses,  that  the  Le- 
vites should  enter  upon  the  holy  duties  of  the 


OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM.  47 

priestly  office,  at  the  age  of  five  and  twenty 
years,  and  continue  until  they  are  fifty  years 
of  age.  Numb.  viii.  24,  25.  Now  this  last 
law,  which  required  the  Levites  to  commence 
serving  in  the  house  of  God  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five  years,  continued  in  force  for  the 
space  of  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  years, 
up  to  the  time  when  Israel  was  peacefully 
settled  in  the  promised  land,  and  when  it  was 
no  longer  the  arduous  duty  of  the  Levites  to 
carry  the  tabernacle  and  its  numerous  vessels 
for  the  service  thereof.  At  which  time  David, 
being  divinely  inspired,  gave  orders  that  the 
Levites  should  be  numbered  for  the  service  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  from  the  age  of  twenty 
years.     1  Chron.  xxiii.  24. 

This  computation  of  the  Levites  for  the 
active  duties  of  the  sanctuary,  was  confirmed 
by  David,  a  little  before  his  death,  and  esta- 
blished as  an  ordinance  for  ever.  1  Chron. 
xxiii.  27,  &c.  Hence,  four  hundred  and  eighty 
years  afterwards,  when  Israel  was  restored 
from  the  captivity  of  Babylon,  the  law,  requir- 
ing Levites  to  enter  upon  official  duties  at  the 
age  of  twenty  years,  was  renewed  and  ever 
after  continued.  Ezra  iii.  8.  The  same  law 
was  in  force  when  Jesus  was  baptized,  but 
neither  Jesus  nor  John  observed  it.  Nor  was 
there  any  necessity  for  them  to  observe  it, 
since  they  were  not  consecrated  to  the  Leviti- 
cal  priesthood. 

But  again,  I  ought  not  to  omit  the  remark. 


48  CHRIST'S  SANCTION 

that  what  is  said  above  has  special  regard  to 
the  Levites,  who  were  the  general  order  of 
priests,  and  not  to  the  office  of  high  priest. 

Now  Jesus  was  the  great  High  priest  an- 
swering to  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews.  And 
respecting  the  Jewish  high  priest  no  law  was 
enacted  as  to  what  age  he  should  be  conse- 
crated to  the  holy  duties  of  his  office  !  If  no 
way  incapacitated,  he  was  to  continue  his 
sacred  functions  until  death,  but  at  what  age 
he  entered  upon  them  we  are  no  where  in- 
formed. Christ,  therefore,  did  not  delay  his 
baptism  until  he  was  thirty  years  of  age  be- 
cause of  any  Jewish  law  requiring  him  to  do 
so,  for  no  such  law  did  exist. 

But  Jet  us  consider  the  position  which  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren  assume,  that  Christ,  by 
his  baptism,  was  initiated  into  the  office  of 
high  priest,  after  the  manner  of  consecrating 
the  high  priest  of  the  Jews. 

It  is  sufficient  to  remark,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  Jews  never  had  any  such  custom  at 
the  consecration  of  a  priest.  The  Jewish  high 
priest,  when  set  apart  to  the  office  of  the  priest- 
hood, was  washed  with  water  at  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle;  clothed  with  the  priestly  robe; 
girded  with  the  curious  girdle  of  the  ephod, 
by  which  the  ephod  was  bound  to  him;  a 
breast-plate  was  put  upon  him,  in  which  were 
the  Urim  and  Thummim;  a  mitre  was  put 
upon  his  head,  and  upon  the  mitre  a  golden 
plate,  the  holy  crown ;   and  the  anointing  oil 


OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM. 


49 


was  poured  upon  his  head  ;  but  never  was  he 
baptized.     Ex.  xl.  12 — 15.     Levit.  viii. 

Nor  did  Jesus  ever  submit  to  baptism  in 
compliance  with  any  such  custom.  Even  had 
there  been  such  a  custom,  John  was  by  no 
menus  a  suitable  person  to  administer  the  rite, 
since  he  himself  was  never  consecrated  to  the 
office  of  a  Jewish  priest.  If  Christ  must  needs 
have  been  baptized  to  fulfil  the  law  of  Moses, 
then  the  regular  priest,  and  not  John,  would 
have  administered  the  rite  to  him.  In  this 
case,  John's  baptizing  Christ  was  an  act  of 
gratuitous  usurpation,  and  must  have  been 
looked  upon  as  such  by  every  Jew.  Even  a 
king  had  no  right  to  intrude  in  such  matters. 
2  Chron.  xxvi.  17,  18.  Moreover,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  Jesus  was  never  set  apart  to  act 
in  the  capacity  of  a  Jewish  priest. 

His  priesthood  was  not  a  shadow,  but  a 
glorious  reality.  It  is  perfect,  and  suited  to 
all  the  ends  and  purposes  of  effecting  the  sal- 
vation of  sinful  men.  Jesus,  as  a  priest,  takes 
no  victim  from  the  fold,  but  makes  a  sacrificial 
offering  of  himself — the  Lamb  of  God — a  noble 
sacrifice  for  man  !  The  institution  of  the  Le- 
vitical  priesthood  was  typical  of  that  which 
Christ  sustained. 

The  former  was  an  allusive  institution, 
highly  emblematical  of  the  latter,  and  w7ell 
calculated  to  impress  the  mind  of  a  Jew,  as 
well  as  enlighten  his  apprehension  respecting 
the  glory  and  grandeur  of  him  "  who,  through 
5 


50 


CHRIST'S  SANCTION 


the  eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  God." 

It  must,  therefore,  have  been  highly  incon- 
gruous for  Jesus  to  have  submitted  to  the 
mode  of  a  legal  consecration,  since  he  was 
not  the  type,  but  the  glorious  antitype.  He 
was  not  constituted  a  priest  after  the  manner 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  but  declared  a  priest 
by  "the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  since  the 
law."     Heb.  vii.  28. 

And  still  further,  it  is  evident  that  Christ 
could  never  have  submitted  to  be  consecrated 
after  the  custom  of  the  Jewish  high  priest, 
since  the  priesthood  and  the  law  of  its  appoint- 
ment were  to  be  changed  at  the  coming  of 
Christ.  The  Levitical  priesthood,  with  all  its 
array  of  splendour  and  mode  of  consecration, 
was  to  terminate.  It  was  to  be  superseded  by 
another,  infinitely  more  grand  and  important, 
differing  as  widely  from  the  former,  as  the  sub- 
stance transcends  its  shadow.  The  Aaroni- 
cal  priesthood  answered  the  end  for  which  it 
was  intended ;  but  it  could  never  accomplish 
what  was  necessary  for  our  salvation;  for 
then  there  could  have  been  no  occasion  for 
the  coming  of  another  priest,  after  another 
order,  and  under  different  laws.  "For  such  an 
high  priest  became  us  who  is  holy  and  made 
higher  than  the  heavens."  "  A  minister  of  the 
sanctunry  and  of  the  true  tabernacle  which  the 
Lord  pitched,  and  not  'man." 
Now,  that  Christ  sustained  a  priesthood  alto- 


OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM.  5J 

getber  different  from  the  high  priesthood  of 
the  Jews,  both  in  respect  to  the  laws  of  ap- 
pointment and  mode  of  consecration,  is  put  be- 
yond  a  doubt  by  the  following  considerations: 

First,  Christ,  the  High  Priest  of  our  profes- 
sion, it  is  evident,  descended  not  in  the  line  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  regular  and  legal  line  of 
the  high  priest  of  the  Jews,  but  is  of  the  tribe 
of  Jiiciah,  respecting  which,  Moses  spake  no- 
thing concerning  priesthood.  Heb.  vii.  13,  14. 
This  single  circumstance  would  have  forbid 
the  idea  of  Christ's  ever  being  consecrated  a 
priest  after  the  law  of  Moses.  The  objection 
would  have  been  immediately  raised  against 
him,  he  is  not  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  there- 
fore not  eligible  to  the  priesthood.  But  it  is 
yet  more  evident  that  Christ  could  not  be  a 
priest  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  con- 
sequently could  not  have  submitted  to  a  legal 
consecration,  since  he  was  not  a  priest  after 
the  order  of  Aaron  ;  but  after  the  similitude  of 
Melchisedec.  He  is  made  or  appointed  a 
priest,  "  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  com- 
mandment,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless 
lifer     Heb.  vii.  11,  15,  16,  17,  18. 

And  again,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the 
Jewish  priesthood  was  changed,  and  that  this 
change  rendered  it  necessary  that  there  should 
also  be  a  change  of  the  law  by  which  the 
priesthood  should  be  regulated.     Heb.  vii.  12. 

Jesus  is  come  a  high  priest  according  to  an 
arrangement  entirely  unique.    This  new  order 


52 


CHRIST'S  SANCTION 


for  an  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God, 
which  is  the  new  or  gospel  dispensation,  was 
little  known  till  the  anointed  priest  had  actu- 
ally come. 

That  such  a  change  should  take  place,  was 
matter  of  divine  prediction,  Ps.  ex.  4,  and  was 
imperfectly  held  to  view  in  the  priestly  office 
of  Melchisedec ;  yet  it  wTas  little  understood, 
and  reserved  till  the  times  of  the  Saviour  to 
be  more  fully  revealed.  Hence,  Christ  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  legal  arrangement  fur- 
ther than  to  be  of  the  house  of  David.  Nor 
would  it  have  been  a  righteous  act  in  him  to 
have  sought  a  consecration  according  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  for  such  a  consecration  would 
have  been  illegal.  It  would  have  violated 
every  precept  of  the  Mosaic  law  respecting 
the  qualifications  of  one  designed  for  the  sacer- 
dotal office  of  high  priest;  who,  according  to 
law,  must  be  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  of  the 
family  of  Aaron,  and  consecrated  not  by  bap- 
tism, but  according  to  the  directions  of  the 
law.  Levit.  viii.  1,  &c.  Hence  it  is  certain  that 
Christ  could  not,  and  did  not  have  any  allusion 
to  the  legal  and  ceremonial  rites  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation  when  he  said,  "thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  But  he  had 
regard  to  a  new  and  expressive  institution 
which  was  the  badge  of  his  disciples,  and  a 
beautiful  emblem  of  his  future  burial  and  resur- 
rection. It  became  Christ  thus  to  sanction 
the  holy  rite,  which  is  to  be  perpetuated  until 


OF  JOHNS  BAPTISM. 


53 


the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  when  the  em- 
blem shall  give  place  to  the  awful  and  sublime 
reality. 

Till  then,  my  brethren,  and  I  mention  it  as 
another  mark  of  dissimilitude  between  Christ 
as  a  priest  over  the  house  of  God,  and 
Aaron  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews ;  till  then, 
Christ,  the  great  High  Priest,  who  has  passed 
into  the  heavens  by  his  own  blood,  shall  there 
continually  officiate  as  our  mediator,  while 
Aaron  and  all  his  successors  in  office  shall 
await  the  coming  of  that  solemn  and  eventful 
day.  For  Christ  is  "called  of  God  an  High 
Priest,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec;"  with- 
out the  beginning  of  sacerdotal  days,  and  with- 
out end  of  life,  to  abide  a  priest  continually. 

He  did  not,  therefore,  commence  his  media- 
torial, or  priestly  office  at  the  time  when  he 
ratified  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  but  long  be- 
fore did  he  become  the  sinner's  intercessor 
before  the  throne  of  his  Father.  Vain,  then, 
is  the  plea,  that  Jesus'  baptism  was  a  mere  in- 
duction into  office  after  the  fancied  custom  of 
consecrating  Jewish  priests. 

So  far  from  it,  that  baptism  which  Jesus 
sanctioned  by  his  personal  obedience,  was  a 
new,  sublime,  and  holy  rite.  In  submitting  to 
it,  he  put  an  honour  upon  the  ministry  of  John, 
ratified  the  institution  of  baptism  as  a  standing 
ordinance  in  his  church  to  the  end  of  time, 
and  left  his  disciples  an  example  of  that  strict 
5* 


54 


CHRIST'S  SANCTION 


obedience  which  he  requires  to  be  rendered 
to  this  divinely  appointed  rite.* 

That  baptism,  therefore,  which  John  ad- 
ministered to  the  penitent,  believing  Jews  in 
Jordan,  and  which  Jesus  himself  hallowed  and 
exemplified,  as  a  perpetual  ordinance  of  divine 
worship,  is  identically  the  same  as  that  which 
Jesus  commanded  his  apostles  to  administer  to 
believers  among  all  nations;  the  same  as  that 
which  the  apostles  practised.  And  such  was 
the  understanding  of  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of 
the  Latin  fathers,  when  he  said,  "  There  is  no 
difference  between  them  whom  John  dipped 
in  Jordan,  and  those  whom  Peter  dipped  in  the 
Tiber."     De  Baptismo,  cap.  4. 

But,  finally,  we  are  taught  by  the  Saviour 
himself,  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner,  that 
John  received  that  baptism  which  he  taught 
from  above,  and  administered  it  by  divine  ap- 
pointment.    When  some  of  the  proud  and  dis- 

*  Witsius  says:  "  Our  Lord  would  be  baptized,  that  he 
might  conciliate  authority  to  the  baptism  of  John,  that  by 
his  own  example  he  might  commend  and  sanctify  our 
baptism;  that  men  might  not  be  loath  to  come  to  the  baptism 
of  the  Lord,  seeing  the  Lord  ivas  not  backward  to  come  to 
the  baptism  of  a  servant;  that  by  his  baptism,  he  might 
represent  the  future  conditum  both  of  himself  and  his  fol- 
lowers; first  humble,  then  glorious,-  now  mean  and  low, 
then  glorious  and  exalted;  that  represented  by  immersion-, 
this  by  emersion;  and  finally,  to  declare  by  his  voluntary 
submission  to  baptism,  that  he  would  not  delay  the  de- 
livering up  of  himself  to  be  immersed  in  the  torrents  of 
hell,"  i.  e  jleath  and  the  grave,  "  yet  with  a  certain  faith  and 
hope  of  emerging." — Miscel.  Sac.  Tom.  ii.  Ex.  xv.  sec.  63. 


OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM. 


55 


dainful  priests,  scribes  and  elders  of  the  Jews 
who  rejected  the  ministry  both  of  John  and  of 
Christ,  asked  the  Saviour,  by  what  authority 
doest  thou  these  things?  and  who  gave  thee 
this  authority?  Jesus  said  to  them,  I  will  ask 
you  one  question,  "The  baptism  of  John,  was 
it  from  heaven,  or  of  men?" 

Now  for  an  instance  of  prevarication  by 
these  Jewish  professors.  They  saw  and  felt 
the  perplexing  dilemma  into  which  the  Son 
of  God  had  brought  them. 

They  withdrew  a  little  from  the  Saviour 
and  consulted  among  themselves,  saying,  what 
shall  we  do? 

"If  we  shall  say  from  heaven,  he  will  say, 
why  then  did  ye  not  believe  him?"  Why  did 
you  not  receive  his  doctrine,  obey  his  com- 
mands, repent  of  sin,  believe  his  preaching 
and  repeated  testimony  of  me,  and  come  like 
other  penitent  Jews,  and  be  baptized  of  him? 
But  if  we  say  John's  baptism  is  of  men,  and 
has  no  divine  warrant,  we  fear  the  conse- 
quences. "  All  the  people  will  stone  us"  for 
such  open  slanderous  insinuations  against  the 
character  and  reputation  of  one  so  confessedly 
eminent  for  probity  and  holiness ;  for  all  men 
counted  John,  and  are  persuaded  that  he  was 
a  prophet  indeed.  And  therefore  they  de- 
clined an  answer.  Not  because  they  were  in 
doubt.  Not  that  the  question  propounded  by 
the  Saviour  was  an  obscure  or  ambiguous  one; 
but  because  it  better  answered  their  wicked 


kq  CHRIST'S  SANCTION  OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM. 

ends  to  dissemble,  than  ingenuously  to  acknow- 
ledge their  wrong  and  abandon  their  pur- 
pose. 

Who  does  not  pity  these  chief  priests,  scribes 
and  elders  of  the  Jews,  in  that  they  had  not 
learned,  at  the  time,  that  John's  baptism  was 
borrowed  of  a  Jewish  custom?  Had  they 
lived  in  modern  times,  and  enjoyed  the  instruc- 
tions of  Maimonides,  at  Cordova;  or  of  John 
Lightfoot,  at  Harnsey,  they  could  have  re- 
turned an  answer  to  *the  .Saviour,  and  saved 
themselves  the  extreme  mortification  of  betray- 
ing their  secret  and  wicked  devices.  Luke 
xx.  4—7.     Mark  xi.  30—32. 

The  entire  theory,  therefore,  of  our  Pedobap- 
tist  brethren,  in  their  attempt  to  identify  the  Jew- 
ish nation  with  the  Christian  church;  to  derive 
John's  baptism  from  a  supposed  custom  of 
proselyte  baptism  among  the  Jews;  that 
Christ's  baptism  was  his  induction  into  the 
priesthood;  that  baptism  was  administered  to 
our  Lord  upon  the  same  principles  that  priests 
were  dedicated  to  their  official  duties;  that 
Christ  observed  the  rituals  of  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation in  his  own  person  ;  and  that  sprink- 
ling, and  the  sprinkling  of  infants  are  infer- 
entially  deduced  from  such  premises;  the 
whole' of  this  theory  labours  under  a  radical 
and  most  fatal  defect  of  evidence.  Nor  ought 
those,  who  advocate  a  scheme  so  void  of 
all  substantial  testimony,  deem  it  surprising 
that  such  a  theory  should  gradually,  and  in 


BAPTISM  A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION.  57 

time  to  come,  fully  lose  the  confidence  of  an 
enlightened  people.  Is  not  a  scheme  so  vision- 
ary ready  to  vanish  away  ? 


Section  VI. 

BAPTISM  IS  A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT, MOST  EXPLICITLY  REVEALED,  AND  CLOTHED 
WITH  DIVINE  AUTHORITY. 

If  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone  be  "  the  reli- 
gion of  Protestants"  then  may  we  look  for  the 
line  of  our  duty  no  where  else.  Every  thing 
entitled  to  our  regard  as  a  part  of  instituted 
worship,  must  be  founded  on  some  plain  direc- 
tion recorded  upon  the  inspired  page. 

Baptism  is  a  positive  institution  of  divine 
appointment,  and  must,  therefore,  be  plainly 
revealed,  both  with  respect  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  ordinance  must  be  administered, 
and  the  qualifications  of  those  who  are  to  be 
baptized. 

And  why  should  not  all  cheerfully  admit, 
and  rejoice  in  the  truth  that  the  institutions  of 
the  gospel  are  not  ambiguous,  and  capable  of 
any  interpretation,  like  the  Sibylline  oracles, 
but  plain,  and  of  a  certain  import?  Can  we 
take  any  other  ground,  and  be  safe  against 
the  attacks  of  infidelity  ? 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  themselves,  when 
arguing  upon  any  subject,  except  pedobaptism 


58 


BAPTISM 


and  sprinklings  most  fully  argree  with  Baptists, 
that  positive  institutions  are  to  be  made  out, 
not  by  a  course  of  reasoning,  but  by  plain  ex- 
press commands.  Hence  Dr.  S.  Clurke  says, 
speaking  of  the  institutions  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  JSupper,  "In  matters  of  this  nature,  the 
command  of  our  Lord  is  reason  sufficient.  For 
in  things  of  external  appointment,  and  mere  po- 
sitive  institutions,  where  we  cannot,  as  in  mat- 
ters of  natural  and  moral  duty,  argue  concern- 
ing the  natural  reason  and  ground  of  the  obli- 
gation, and  the  original  necessity  of  the  thing 
itself;  we  have  nothing  to  do,  but  to  obey  the 
positive  command.  God  is  infinitely  better  able 
than  we,  to  judge  of  the  propriety  and  useful- 
ness of  the  things  he  institutes,  and  it  becomes 
os  to  obey  with  humility  and  reverence." — 
Expos.  Chh.  Cat.  p.  165,  A.  D.  1730. 

The  truth  is,  every  effort,  that  is  made  to 
justify  sprinkling  for  baptism,  and  infants  as 
proper  subjects  of  the  holy  rite,  tends  equally 
to  bring  down  the  instructions  of  God  in  the 
Bible  to  a  level  with  the  dubious  and  unintelli- 
gible oracles, of  Greece  and  Rome.  It  may 
answer  the  purpose  of  the  priests  and  priestesses 
over  such  oracles  to  play  upon  words,  and  in- 
terpret according  to  their  interest  and  fancy, 
but  such  conduct  illy  becomes  the  priests  of 
our  holy  religion — the  ministers  of  the  sanc- 
tuary of  God. 

Respecting  the  sense  of  Scripture,  in  rela- 
tion to  positive  institutions,  as  in  all  things  of 


A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION. 


59 


biblical  record,  there  should  be  no  prevarica- 
tion ;  no  captious  objections  urged  against 
them,  nor  specious  arguments  advanced  in 
their  support ;  no  concealment  of  the  truth  in 
their  favour,  nor  any  resort  to  fanciful  inter- 
pretations of  Scripture.  All  such  influences 
are  to  be  excluded  when  we  canvass  the  word 
of  God  in  search  after  its  true  import.  And 
if  we  are  careful  to  bring  with  us  to  the  Bible 
a  sanctified  heart,  willing  that  the  Lord  should 
speak  in  his  word,  and  speak  to  our  conscience, 
there  can  be  little  difficulty  in  understanding 
what  he  shall  speak  10  his  people. 

In  giving  precepts  and  directions  respecting 
positive  institutions,  it  is  an  universal  rule,  hu- 
man as  well  as  divine,  to  make  choice  of  such 
words  as  are  of  a  fixed  and  certain  import, 
easily  defined  by  those  whose  obedience  is 
required. 

It  has  been  well  remarked  by  a  late  writer 
on  moral  science,  that,  "In  the  institution  of 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  the  method  of  its  ad- 
ministration is  prescribed  by  divine  authority, 
and  we  have  no  right  to  depart  from  a  single 
item  of  the  prescription.  The  same  authority 
which  instituted  the  ordinance,  also  prescribed 
the  manner  in  which  it  should  be  administered, 
and  we  are  under  the  same  obligations  to  ob- 
serve the  latter,  that  we  are  to  recognize  the 
former. 

"  When  God,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  sove- 
reignty, instituted  an  ordinance  for  our  benefit, 


60 


BAPTISM 


it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  observe  it  in  all  its 
circumstances.  We  have  no  right  to  dispense 
with  even  the  smallest  incident  with  which  it 
is  invested;  but  are  bound  to  receive  it  pre- 
cisely as  God  gave  it. 

"  We  may  remark  that,  negative  passages 
in  the  holy  Scriptures  can  never  neutralize  po- 
sitive precepts.  Christ,  in  the  institution  of 
baptism,  pointed  out  the  manner  in  which  it 
should  be  administered  with  circumstantial 
minuteness." — Rev.  Wm.  B.  Lacey. 

Were  it  not  so,  what  uncertainty  and  doubt 
must  attend  us  in  our  best  and  most  sincere 
efforts  to  understand  the  commands  of  Jesus? 

Could  the  compassionate  Saviour,  who  ever 
consulted  the  best  good  of  his  followers,  em- 
ploy words  of  doubtful  import,  when  giving 
directions  to  his  disciples  what  they  should  do, 
to  secure  his  presence  with  them,  and  to 
make  known  his  salvation? 

As  a  wise  institutor  of  laws  and  ordinances 
of  worship,  would  he  employ  words  that  were 
ambiguous  and  difficult  of  understanding  ? 

Could  a  discreet  and  humane  parent,  in 
commanding  his  children,  make  use  of  words 
the  sense  of  which  was  not  determined,  but 
exceedingly  vague  and  uncertain? 

Would  a  legislature,  in  the  enacting  of  laws 
for  a  state  or  province,  make  use  of  such  terms 
and  expressions  as  had  no  settled  meaning,  ca- 
pable of  different  and  even  opposite  definitions? 
Or,  would  they  not  seek  to  find  out  and  em- 


A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION. 


61 


ploy  the  plainest  words  possible,  that  those 
whose  faith  and  obedience  were  required, 
mi^ht,  if  they  were  so  disposed,  understand 
and  be  able  to  obey? 

Should,  lor  instance,  the  authorities  of  this 
town  pass  an  ordinance  that  every  citizen 
should  pave  the  side  walk  over  against  his  own 
house,  would  they,  or  would  they  not,  clothe 
the  ordinance  in  such  language  as  should  be 
intelligible  to  the  people  ? 

Could  they,  with  any  degree  of  propriety, 
make  choice  of  a  word,  instead  of  pave,  that 
had  no  settled  meaning,  capable  of  being  de- 
fined any  way  to  suit  each  one's  fancy  ? 

Then  what  might  be  the  consequence  of  an 
ordinance  so  indefinite,  capable  of  diverse  in- 
terpretations? Every  one  would  be  left  to 
suppose  a  meaning  for  himself.  One  might 
fancy  that  the  import  of  the  statute  was  to 
beautify  the  side-walk  ;  and  as  it  in  a  particular 
manner  suited  his  fancy,  he  would  transplant 
thither  the  most  select  shrubbery;  another 
might,  with  equal  propriety,  contend  that  the 
word  employed  in  the  law,  and  upon  which 
the  sense  of  the  statute  must  be  determined, 
meant  to  excavate,  and  the  design  was  to  have 
a  subterraneous  passage,  after  the  example  of 
the  celebrated  Tunnel  under  the  Thames;  a 
third  supposed  that  the  word  in  question  meant 
not  only  to  beautify  and  excavate,  but  also  to  ele- 
vate, and  he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  raise  a 
mound  on  the  side-way ;  another  contended  that 
6 


62 


BAPTISM 


the  word  had  twenty  or  more  meanings  ;  that  it 
expressed  nothing  definite,  and  every  one  was 
left  to  select  that  sense  which  best  suited  his 
own  convenience,  and  notion  of  things;  for 
any  kind  of  obedience,  if  only  sincere,  would 
be  acceptable  to  the  authorities  of  the  town. 

Now  such  a  statute,  so  indefinite,  and  capa- 
ble of  so  singular  an  interpretation,  would  meet 
our  most  decided  disapprobation,  and  would 
justly  draw  down  the  severest  reflections  upon 
those  who  should  enact  a  law  so  singularly 
ambiguous  and  doubtful. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  God,  the  King  in 
Zion,  has  enacted  a  law,  and  committed  it  first 
to  John,  and  afterwards  to  all  his  apostles,  and 
to  his  ministers  in  every  age,  to  carry  it  into 
effect. 

Pedobaptists  assert  that  the  law  respecting 
baptism  is  extremely  indefinite  and  ambiguous 
in  its  most  essential  points  ;  that  the  said  law 
is  not  express  as  to  the  mode  of  its  administra- 
tion, and  the  qualifications  of  those  to  whom 
it  shall  be  applied.*  They  contend  that  it  is 
quite  impossible  to  define  the  word  baptize,  as 
employed  by  John,  when  he  baptized  the  Sa- 


*  "  Thus  the  book  intended  to  instruct  shall  be  taught 
to  perplex;  the  book,  in  the  world  the  most  determinate 
shall  be  rendered  the  most  vague;  the  book,  the  credit  of 
which  is  absolutely  ruined  it'  it  admit  of  double  meaning's, 
shall  of  all  others  be  rendered  the  most  mysterious  book 
in  the  world,  saying1  every  thing,  and  of  course  narrating 
and  proving  nothing'." — JJr.  Bmsan. 


A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION.  gg 

viour  in  Jordan,  and  as  used  by  our  Lord  him- 
self in  his  commission  to  his  apostles.  Then, 
of  course,  so  much  of  their  divine  commission 
as  relates  to  baptism,  the  apostles  did  not  un- 
derstand. 

Baptists  recoil  at  sentiments  like  these! 

They  dare  not  bring  such  an  allegation 
against  the  Son  of  God,  who  spake  as  never 
man  did,  as  to  clearness  and  perspicuity,  as 
■well  as  to  dignity  and  originality  of  sentiment. 

Baprists,  in  every  age  of  the  Christian 
church,  have  held  and  maintained,  first  against 
the  corruptions  and  innovations  of  the  Romish 
church,  and  latterly  against  those  who  seceded 
from  her,  that  our  Saviour  is  not  ambiguous 
in  his  instructions  to  men,  and  in  giving  direc- 
tions respecting  the  order  and  discipline  of  his 
church  on  earth. 

■  They  believe  and  confidently  affirm  that  the 
divine  statute  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  min- 
isters to  baptize,  and  believers  to  yield  obedi- 
ence to  the  holy  rite,  is  given  to  the  world  in 
the  most  explicit  and  definite  language  possi- 
ble. That,  when  John  received  the  command 
from  heaven  to  baptize,  he  understood  distinct- 
ly the  import  of  his  commission.  That,  when  Je- 
sus added  to  the  divine  authority  by  which  John 
baptized,  an  exemplification  of  the  sacred  in- 
stitution by  his  own  personal  act,  he  left  no- 
thing respecting  it  which  is  in  the  least  doubt- 
ful. That  the  Saviour,  in  making  use  of  the 
same  word  in  his  last  commission  to  his  apos- 


64 


BAPTISM 


ties,  spake  intelligibly  to  them.  His  was  the 
command  of  a  God,  who  spoke  to  be  obeyed  ! 
And  that  the  apostles,  when  they  received  the 
law  of  baptism  from  their  divine  Lord,  were 
not  at  a  loss  to  understand  its  signification,  nor 
doubtful  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  should 
administer  the  rite;  nor  were  they  in  doubt  as 
to  the  character  of  those  to  whom  it  might  be 
applied. 

Says  Mr.  Archibald  Hall,  predecessor  of  Mr. 
Waugh,  of  London:  "How  grand  and  awful 
is  that  weighty  preface  to  the  institution  of 
Christian  baptism  !  Matt,  xxviii.  18,19.  Who 
is  that  daring,  insolent  worm,  that  will  pre- 
sume to  dispute  the  authority,  or  change  the 
ordinances  of  HIM  who  is  given  to  be  head 
over  all  things  to  the  church?  The  solemnity 
of  this  ordinance  is  complete;  and  all  the  pur- 
poses of  its  institution  are  secured  by  the  autho- 
rity and  blessing  of  Christ.  His  laws  are  not 
subject  to  any  of  those  imperfections  which 
are  attendants  of  the  best  contrived  systems 
among  men,  and  frequently  need  explanations, 
amendments,  and  corrections.  It  is  most  danger- 
ous and  presumptuous  to  add  any  ceremony,  or 
to  join  any  service,  on  any  pretence,  unto  Hea- 
ven's appointment."  Gospel  Worship,  vol.  i.  p. 
325,  326. 

If  there  be  a  word  in  the  Greek  Testament 
that  is  clear  in  its  signification,  and  of  a  deter- 
minate meaning,  it  is  the  word  baptism.  "  Yet, 
by  a  course  of  sophistry,  it  shall  be  first  made 


A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION. 


65 


synonymous  with  washing,  and  then  washing 
shall  be  proved  synonymous  with  sprinkling, 
and  then  sprinkling  shall  be  called  baptism" 
But  there  is  not,  my  friends,  a  word  in  the 
Greek  language  more  definite  in  its  original 
sense,  and  more  uniform  in  its  application, 
than  the  word  baptize. 

Moreover,  I  most  deliberately  assure  you 
that  there  is  not  one  doctrine  of  our  holy  reli- 
gion more  distinctly  and  explicitly  stated  and 
set  forth  in  the  Bible,  than  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism. It  comes  to  us  in  the  express  and  posi- 
tive command  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church, 
bearing  his  own  sanction.  It  is  held  out  before 
us  both  by  precept  and  example.  It  is  set  forth 
by  beautiful  and  well  selected  comparisons.  It 
stands  forth,  on  the  sacred  page,  clothed  in  all 
the  authority  with  which  its  divine  author 
himself  is  invested. 

The  God  of  Heaven  appointed  the  holy  rite. 
— Luke  iii.  2,  3;  John  i.  33.  John  received 
and  administered  it  by  divine  authority. — Luke 
i.  17;  John  i.  6;  Mark  i.  1— S. 

Our  Lord  and  JSaviour  sanctioned  the  rite 
by  submitting  to  it  himself. — Mat.  iii.  13;  Mark 
i.  9,  10.  He  considered  his  baptism  the  fill- 
ing up  of  a  course  of  righteousness. — Mat. 
iii.  15. 

A  voice  from  heaven  approved  of  the  Sa- 
viour's baptism,  when  it  said,  as  he  rose  up  out 
of  the  water,  "I  am  well  pleased." — Mat.  iii.  17. 

The  holy  rite  was  rendered  still  more  solemn 
6* 


QQ  BAPTISM  A  POSITIVE  INSTITUTION. 

and  impressive  when  ratified  at  the  Saviour's 
baptism,  by  the  presence  of  the  Three  Persons 
of  the  Adorable  Trinity.— Mat.  iii.  16,  17. 

The  Saviour  incorporated  the  rite  in  his  last 
commission  to  his  apostles. — Mat.  xxviii.  19; 
Markxvi.  15,  16. 

The  holy  apostles,  under  a  solemn  sense  of 
the  impressiveness  of  their  commission,  failed 
not  to  keep  this  ordinance  as  they  had  received 
it,  and  administered  it  according  to  divine  ap- 
pointment. 

Those  who  refused  to  believe  and  be  bap- 
tized, rejected  so  much  of  the  counsel  of  God 
against  themselves. — Luke  vii.  29,  30. 

What  other  truth  on  the  pages  of  inspiration 
is  set  forth  with  such  particular  exactness? 
But  one  thing  is  true,  God  cannot  speak  so 
plain  but  what  men  will  cavil. 


GENERAL  REMARKS. 


67 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    PROPER    IMPORT     OP    THE    WORD    BAPTIZE.* 

Section  I. 

GENERAL    REMARKS. 

I  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  real  meaning 
of  the  Greek  word  baptize,  and  to  show,  from 
correct  principles  of  interpretation,  that  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism  can  be  administered,  accord- 
ing to  the  import  of  the  word  and  the  examples 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  only  by  an  immersion 
of  the  body  of  believers. 

Now,  brethren  and  friends,  as  this  proposi- 

*  Here  T  must  remark,  and  I  desire  the  reader  particu- 
larly to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  word  which  designates  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  in  the  present  tense,  and  expressed 
by  Greek  letters,  is  BaTttt^co,  baptizo.  All  the  changes 
that  our  translators  made  in  the  word,  in  order  to  get  it 
into  the  English  version,  was  merely  changing  the  last 
letter  "o"  for  "e,"  and  making  use  of  the  Roman  letter 
instead  of  the  Greek.  Hence  they  did  not  translate  the 
word,  but  only  transfer  it  into  their  version.  Had  they 
done  the  same  by  pavrt^co,  rantizo,  the  proper  Greek 
word  whose  meaning  is  to  sprinkle,  then  we  should  have 
had  rantizt  in  our  Bible  just  as  we  have  baptize  now. 
Then  the  text  in  Heb.  x.  22,  would  read  thus,  "Having 
our  hearts  rantized  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our 
bodies  washed  in  pure  water." 

With  this  explanation,  I  shall  hereafter  employ  the 
word  baptize  as  it  is  found  in  the  New  Testament,  with 
the  understanding  that  it  is  purely  a  Greek  word. 


68 


GENERAL  REMARKS. 


tion  involves  the  greater  points  at  issue  be- 
tween Baptists  and  Pedobnptists,  i,  e.  between 
those  who  immerse  believers  only,  and  those 
who  sprinkle  both  infants  and  adults,  it  becomes 
us,  as  Christians  and  candid  inquirers  after 
truth,  to  lay  aside  all  prejudice  for,  or  against 
any  practice  whatever,  to  divest  ourselves  of 
all  partiality  in  favour  of  any  church,  and  sit 
down  in  humility  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  receive 
with  meekness  the  engrafted  word,  and  follow 
Christ  and  the  apostles.  It  is  my  sincere  de- 
sire to  speak  as  becometh  the  oracles  of  God. 
I  have  no  selfish  ends  to  answer,  nor  any  party 
feeling  to  gratify. 

I  wish  to  say  nothing  from  partiality,  nor  do 
any  thing  through  strife  or  vain  glory.  I  know 
what  I  here  record  shall  meet  me  when  I  ren- 
der up  my  last  account  before  my  Judge.  I 
dare  teach  only  such  things  as  I  confidently 
believe  shall  abide  the  test,  when  all  our  works 
shall  be  tried,  as  by  fire.  It  will  soon  be  known 
how  I  have  taught,  and  how  you  have  believed 
and  obeyed. 

I  am  sure  I  have  no  predilections  for  im- 
mersion over  sprinkling,  only,  as  I  conceive 
immersion  to  be  essential  io  baptism.  Though, 
I  must  confess,  the  holy  rite,  when  adminis- 
tered to  true  believers,  is  a  most  grand  and 
impressive  scene.  Never  shall  I  forget  the 
day  when  I  yielded  a  cheerful  obedience  to 
the  command  of  my  Lord,  which  requires  his 
followers  to  imitate  him  in  the  noble  example 
he  left  us  when  he  was  immersed  in  Jordan. 


TRANSLATION,  &c.  flg 

I  can  understand  the  Saviour  in  no  other 
light,  in  his  command  to  baptize,  than  an  entire 
immersion  of  the  body.  And  I  feel  happy  in 
being  permitted  to  express  in  your  hearing  the 
grounds  of  mv  unwavering  and  confident  be- 
lief. 

Give  me  then  your  prayerful  and  patient 
attention,  while  I  lay  before  you  what  I  con- 
ceive to  be  the  truth  of  the  Bible  upon  this 
subject. 


Section  II. 


IS  THE  GREEK  WORD  BAPTIZE,  WITH  ITS  DERIVATIVES, 
CAPABLE  OF  BEING  TRANSLATED  INTO  OTHER  LAN- 
GUAGES 1 

We  are  often  told  by  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren that  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize 
cannot  be  expressed  in  other  languages,  and 
that  it  was  on  this  account  that  our  translators 
put  the  Greek  word,  rather  than  a  translation 
of  it,  into  our  English  Testament. 

But  I  reply,  baptize  can  be  literally  and  ex- 
plicitly translated  into  any  language  which  has 
the  words  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge,  or  words 
equivalent  to  these. 

And  its  figurative  import  can  be  conveyed 
into  any  language  which  has  words  such  as, 
overwhelm,    imbue    largely,   deeply    oppressed, 


70  TRANSLATION  OF  THE 

sorely  afflicted,  immersed,  as  in  calamity;  or 
into  any  words  equal  to  these  in  value. 

Yea,  more,  I  have  diligently  examined  bap- 
tize, as  to  its  being  capable  of  a  translation;  I 
have  weighed  the  arguments  which  some  few 
have  urged  against  its  translation;  and  it  is 
my  most  deliberate  conclusion,  that  no  word  in 
the  Greek  Testament  can  be  more  easily  ex- 
pressed in  English.  The  same  reasons  urged 
against  the  translation  of  this  word,  may,  with 
equal  and  in  most  instances,  with  greater  pro- 
priety, be  urged  against  the  translation  of  every 
word  in  the  Greek  Testament.  For  let  it  not 
be  forgotten,  that  if  any  part  of  a  book  should 
be  plainly  written  and  capable  of  being  ex- 
pressed in  languages  other  than  that  in  which 
it  was  originally  written,  it  should  be  that  part 
which  contains  laws,  institutions,  commands,  SfC 

Especially  is  this  the  case  when  a  book,  as 
the  Bible,  was  designed  to  be  translated  into 
all  languages  for  the  best  good  of  all  nations; 
containing  the  very  laws  and  institutions  which 
are  to  govern  the  people  of  every  tongue  and 
language  in  the  whole  earth. 

The  Romish  church  urged,  with  equal  pro- 
priety, the  same  reasons  against  the  translation 
of  the  whole  Bible,  which  are  now  urged  by 
some  Pedobaptists  against  the  translation  of  a 
part  of  this  sacred  gift  to  man. 

Well  was  it  remarked  by  a  distinguished 
gentleman,  addressing  the  secretary  of  the 
Pedobaptist  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 


GREEK  WORD  BAPTIZE.  7J 

"You  believe  that  the  chief  success  of  Romish 
priests  in  twisting  to  their  own  purpose  certain 
doubtful  or  erroneous  renderings,  arose  from 
their  not  giving  to  the  people  the  entire  word 
of  God  in  a  language  which  they  could  under- 
stand" 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are  indeed  tread- 
ing in  the  very  steps  of  the  papal  church,  in 
their  attempt  to  keep  this  word,  with  some 
others,  from  being  translated. 

But,  to  the  question,  can  baptize  be  trans- 
lated \  I  remark,  first,  when  the  translators 
of  our  Bible  had  not  sprinkling  before  their 
minds,  and  did  not  suppose  that  they  should 
violate  the  command  of  their  king,  who  strictly 
charged  them  not  to  translate  certain  words, 
as  baptism  and  others,  which  were  left  un- 
translated by  Bishop  Parker,  a  designing  pre- 
late; when  they  thought  that  they  should  not 
expose  their  sprinkling,  nor  violate  the  restric- 
tions imposed  upon  them  by  their  king,  they 
found  no  difficulty  in  translating  baptize  into 
English. 

By  turning  to  2  Kings  v.  14.  "  Then  went 
he  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 
Jordan,"  you  have  an  example  where  the  very 
word  in  question  has  been  literally  translated; 
and  that  too,  by  the  very  men  who  translated 
the  New  Testament,  and  there,  strange  as  it 
may  appear,  put  the  Greek  word' into  their 
version. 

Again,  the  venerable  Peshito-Syriac  version, 


72  TRANSLATION  OF  THE 

the  first  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament  that 
was  ever  made,  executed  some  time  during  the 
first  century,  and,  as  some  of  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  maintain,  by  the  apostle  Thaddeus, 
soon  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  at  the 
instance  of  Abgarus,  king  of  Syria,  has  baptize 
translated  into  a  word  which  means  to  immerse. 
To  the  fidelity  and  unexampled  accuracy  of 
this  translation,  every  competent  critic  bears, 
the  most  decided  testimony.  The  perfect  ex- 
cellence of  the  work  itself  is  a  strong  internal 
evidence  that  it  was  performed  by  an  inspired 
hand.  "Its  language,"  says  Michaelis,  "is 
elegant  and  pure.  It  is  not  loaded  with 
foreign  idioms ;  and  it  discovers  the  hand  of 
a  master,  in  rendering  those  passages,  where 
the  idioms  of  the  two  languages  deviate  from 
each  other.  It  has  no  marks  of  the  stiffness 
of  a  translation,  but  is  written  with  the  ease 
and  fluency  of  an  original" 

Now  this  Protoplastic  translation,  the  very 
best  that  has  ever  been  made,  Pedobaptists 
themselves  being  witnesses,  has  baptize  trans- 
lated. Whether  this  version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament be  the  work  of  an  inspired  apostle,  or 
not,  which  cannot  be  determined,  it  evidently 
was  executed  by  the  last  of  the  first  century, 
and  by  one  more  than  ordinarily  qualified  for  so 
great  a  work. 

This  single  fact  ought  to  put  the  blush  upon 
the  papal  church  which  first  led  the  way  of 
transferring  this  word ;  then  upon  the  prelati- 


GREEK  WORD  BAPTIZE. 


73 


cal  Parker;  the  translators  of  our  Bible,  and 
others  who  follow  this  unworthy  example; 
and  lastly,  and  more  especially,  ought  the 
blush,  indicative  of  wrong,  to  fasten  upon  the 
countenance  of  those,  who,  not  controlled  by 
any  royal  edict,  swayed  only  by  the  force  of 
party  prejudice,  contend  that  the  word  baptize 
cannot  be  translated. 

Dr.  Campbell,  a  celebrated  Presbyterian, 
whose  name,  by  virtue  of  his  rare  learning  and 
bold  defence  of  the  truth,  is  worthy  of  frequent 
mention,  said,  touching  the  very  point  in  ques- 
tion, "  When,  therefore,  the  Greek  word  is 
adopted,  I  may  say,  rather  than  translated 
into  modern  languages,  the  mode  of  construc- 
tion ought  to  be  'preserved  so  far  as  may  conduce 
to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  we  have  so  much  evidence,  that  even 
good  and  learned  men  allow  their  judgments  to 
be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the 
sect  which  they  prefer.  His  notes  on  Matt. 
iii.  11. 

Indeed,  my  brethren,  I  most  sincerely  pity 
that  man  who  has,  in  this  age  of  Gospel  light, 
a  conscience  that  can  suffer  him  to  deny  the 
practicability  of  translating  baptize,  baptism  and 
their  kindred  words  into  words  meaning  to  im- 
merse, immersion,  fyc.  In  the  very  pertinent 
language  of  the  venerable  Maclay,  I  may  say, 
"  If,  on  the  earth,  there  should  be  some  oppo- 
sition to  the  principles  on  which  we  proceed 
in  the  work  of  translation,  by  good  men,  they 
7 


74  TRANSLATION  OF  THE 

will  be  ashamed  when  they  see  Jesus  as  he  is, 
that  it  ever  entered  into  their  hearts  to  conceal 
a  part  of  his  revealed  will  from  the  nations  of 
the  earth  in  a  dead  language,  with  the  view 
of  promoting  party  designs,  and  of  preventing 
men  from  knowing  his  will  and  their  duty  and 
obligation  to  obey  him." 

Add  to  this  the  fact,  that  the  most  faithful  ver- 
sions of  the  New  Testament,  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  until  the  present  time,  have  the  word  in 
question  literally  translated. 

The  Coptic,  Ethiopic  and  Gothic  versions, 
translated  from  the  Greek,  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  and  justly  held  in  high  esti- 
mation, have  the  word  baptize  uniformly  ren- 
dered into  words  which  signify  to  immerse. 
The  ancient  Arabic,  and  the  Arabic  of  the 
Propaganda,  of  Sabat,  &c,  all  have  the  ren- 
dering immersion.  The  languages  of  Egypt, 
of  Abyssinia,  of  Holland,  of  Denmark,  of 
Sweden,  have  the  New  Testament  translated 
into  them,  and  the  word  in  question  is  not 
transferred,  after  the  example  of  Romanists, 
but  faithfully  rendered. 

Luther,  one  of  the  great,  reformers,  gave 
the  Bible  translated  to  the  Germans,  that  they 
might  read  in  their  own  language  the  wonder- 
ful works  of  God ;  and  he  rendered  baptize 
into  a  word  signifying  to  immerse. 

Pedobaptist  missionaries  have  translated 
baptize  in  the  Cherokee  language  by  a  word 
signifying  immerse. 

Baptists,  in  all  ages,  have  uniformly  trans- 


GREEK  WORD  BAI>TIZE. 


75 


lated  the  word  baptize;  and  no  denominntion 
has  equaled  them  in  multiplying  copies  of  the 
Word  of  God  into  different  languages.  More- 
over, Baptists  hold  it  as  a  fearful  violation  of 
that  trust  reposed  in  Christians,  to  withhold, 
from  the  nations  of  the  earth,  a  faithful  trans- 
lation of  the  words  of  eternal  life.  They  dare 
not  cover  up  in  an  unknown  tongue  any  part 
of  the  advices  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  And 
least  of  all  can  there  be  any  just  pretence  for 
such  a  practice,  respecting  those  words,  which 
convey  to  men  laws  and  positive  institutions 
asking  and  demanding  universal  obedience. 

You  perceive  then,  that  baptize  can  be  and 
has  been  literally  translated,  and  by  those  too 
who  translated  our  Bible;  and  also  by  some 
of  the  most  distinguished  philologists  and  cri- 
tics that  have  ever  adorned  the  Christian 
church  since  the  days  of  the  apostles.  This 
word  has  not  only  been  translated  into  words 
whose  meaning  is  immerse,  but  also  into  many 
different  languages,  and  among  many  nations; 
including  the  earliest  and  most  faithful  versions 
ever  made. 

The  feasibility  and  propriety  of  translating 
baptize  were  never  called  in  question  until 
after  the  nefarious  decree  of  1311,  at  Ravenna, 
by  a  council  of  the  church  of  Rome,  when  it 
was  declared  that  sprinkling  should  take  the 
place  of  immersion.  Long  before  this,  had  the 
papal  church  set  the  example  of  transferring 
certain  words  which  the  common  people  were 


76  WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

made  to  believe  were  too  sacred  to  be  expressed 
in  a  version  ;  but  the  practicability  of  translat- 
ing the  word  in  question  was  not  disputed. 

The  reasons  urged  by  Pedobaptists  against 
the  translation  of  baptize  into  words  which 
signify  to  immerse,  &c.  are  of  a  very  modern 
date,  no  where  to  be  found  prior  to  the  time 
of  Henry  VIII.,  when  the  Episcopal  church, 
with  Henry  at  her  head,  seceded  from  the 
church  of  Rome,  and  proclaimed  herself  "The 
Church  of  England."  "The  king  soon  after 
procured  the  dignified  and  flattering  title  of 
Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  England." 
Brook's  Lives  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  2. 


Section  III. 


WHY  DID  THOSE  WHO  TRANSLATED  OUR  BIBLE  NOT  TRANS- 
LATE BAPTIZE  AND  ITS  DERIVATIONS,  WHEN  THEY  CAME 
TO  THE    NEW  TESTAMENT  )       WHY  DID  THEY  TRANSFER 


THE  GREEK  WORDS  INTO  THEIR  ENGLISH  VERSION 


I  answer,  just  for  the  same  reason  that  in- 
duced "  the  crafty  Bishop  Gardiner,  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.,  when  he  found  it  impossible 
longer  to  withhold  an  English  Testament,  to 
assert,  by  a  popish  stratagem,  that  there  were 
many  words  in  the  New  Testament  of  such 
majesty  that  they  were  not  to  be  trans- 
lated ;  but  must  stand  in  the  English  Bible  as 
they  were,  in  Latin.     A  Hundred  of  these  he 


TRANSFERRED? 


77 


put  in  a  written  list,  which  was  read  in  convo- 
cation. His  design  in  this,"  says  Bishop 
Burnet,  "was  visible;  that  if  a  translation  must 
be  made,  it  should  be  so  daubed  all  through 
with  Latin  words  that  the  people  should  not 
understand  it  much  the  better  for  its  being  in 
English."  The  following  are  some  of  the 
words  he  wished  to  retain  in  Latin :  ecclesia, 
congregation ;  penitentia,  repentance  ;  bapti- 
zare,  immerse;  simulachrum,  image,  &c.  The 
design  of  the  cunning  papist  in  keeping  the 
last  of  these  words  untranslated  must  be  evi- 
dent to  all,  viz.  that  the  people  might  not  dis- 
cover in  bowing  down  to  an  image,  as  they 
were  taught  by  their  priests,  that  they  were 
acting  contrary  to  {Scripture.  I  suppose  few 
will  be  hardy  enough  to  deny  that  'such  a  ver- 
sion as  Bishop  Gardiner  proposed,  was  a  Bible 
mutilated  and  disguised.  And  wherefore? 
Because  it  concealed  the  meaning  of  certain 
words  in  an  unknown  tongue.  For  the  same 
reason,  we  maintain  a  Bible  with  the  Greek 
words  Baptizo,  Baptisma,  and  their  cognates 
untranslated,  or  concealed  from  the  heathen  in 
an  unknown  tongue,  is  a  Bible  mutilated  and 
disguised. 

"  The  principle  violated  is  the  same,  whether 
we  conceal  two  words  or  a  thousand.  We 
have  no  more  right  to  leave  them  untranslated 
in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other."  1.  "  To 
give  the  heathen  such  a  mutilated  and  dis- 
guised version,  is  a  violation  of  the  great 
7# 


73  WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

law  of  love  ;  it  is  not  doing  to  others  as  we 
would  they  should  do  unto  us.  2.  To  give 
such  a  mutilated  Bible  lo  the  heathen,  is  as- 
suming a  right  which  belongs  only  to  God — 
the  right  of  deciding  how  much  or  how  little 
God  shall  reveal  to  man.  3.  It  is  assuming  a 
principle  upon  which  any  and  every  import- 
ant doctrine  might  be  shut  out  of  the  Bible, 
simply  by  leaving  the  words  referring  to  it 
untranslated." — Dowlin's  Address  before  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society. 

No  one  need  be  at  a  loss  as  to  the  design  of 
Bishop  Gardiner  and  the  papal  church  in  keep- 
ing baptize  with  other  words  untranslated. 
The  Church  of  Rome,  arrogating  to  herself 
the  right  of  supreme  dominion  over  the  faith 
and  consciences  of  men,  decreed  that  the  peo- 
ple should  bow  down  to  images;  that  they 
should  do  penance;  that  sprinkling  should  take 
the  place  of  immersion  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  ;  that  the  congregations  under  the  do- 
minion of  the  Pope  constituted  the  holy  Catho- 
lic  church,  and  other  things  equally  absurd. 

To  compose  and  satisfy  the  people  as  to  the 
correctness  of  her  decrees,  she  had  recourse  to 
the  convenient  method  of  giving  the  Bible  to 
them  only  partly  translated ;  or  with  foreign 
barbarous  words  substituted  for  original  ones, 
under  the  pretext  that  such  words  were  too  sa- 
cred to  admit  of  a  translation,  and  must,  there- 
fore, in  their  original  forms,  be  adopted  into 
their  versions,  while  the  common  people  were 


TRANSFERRED? 


79 


taught  to  depend  upon  the  interpretations  of 
the  priests.  For,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  church,  "  The  penitent  must  sub- 
mit  himself  tQ  the  judgment  of  the  priest,  who 
is  the  vicegerent  of  God." — Cat.  Council  of 
Trent,  p.  183. 

When  once  the  people  were  persuaded  of 
their  duty  in  trusting  implicitly  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  priests,  no  difficulty  remained  in  the 
way  of  imposing  upon  them  any  sentiment  and 
practice  which  might  suit  the  convenience  and 
purpose  of  their  religious  guides. 

For  a  time,  the  sentiment  was  quite  popular 
that,  the  common  people  were  safe  in  the  hands 
of  their  bishops  and  clergy.  All  that  was  ne- 
cessary on  their  part  was  profound  veneration, 
and  strict  obedience.  And  but  for  the  trouble- 
some Baptists  of  those  times,  who,  notwithstand- 
ing the  severity  of  their  persecutors,  would 
occasionally  sally  forth  from  their  mountain 
cloisters,  whither  they  had  been  driven  by  the 
arm  of  ecclesiastical  power,  and  teach  the 
people  liberty  of  conscience,  and  the  right  of 
reading  and  examining  for  themselves  ;  but  for 
these  disturbers,  things  had  continued  much  to 
the  satisfaction  of  his  holiness  at  Rome.* 


*  "Pope  Innocent  III.,  in  the  year  1204,  sent  the  In- 
quisitors against  the  heretical  Albigenses,"  as  he  was 
pleased  to  call  them,  but  who,  in  fact,  were  Baptists, 
"who  infested  the  province  of  Tolouse,  and  gave  them 
power  to  proceed  against  them,  to  prohibit  their  books, 
and  to  commit  them  to  the  Jiames.     This  was  afterwards 


80 


WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 


But  when  in  the  course  of  events  there  were 
some  not  to  be  pacified  without  possessing  the 
Bible  in  their  own  vernacular  tongue,  their 
desires  were  granted  ;  but  under  such  restric- 
tions as  should  still  support  the  established 
church  of  England,  and  keep  the  people  in  ig- 
norance. 

Several  translations  of  the  Bible  into  the 
English  tongue  in  whole  or  in  part  made  their 
appearance  at  sundry  times,  from  before  the 
accession  of  Henry  VIII.  to  the  throne  of  Eng- 
land, 1509,  till  our  present  English  version  re- 
ceived the  royal  sanction  of  James  I.,  in  1611. 

In  preparing  his  version,  King  James  re- 
stricted the  translators  within  certain  bounds, 
which  left  them  not  at  liberty  to  follow  the 
plain  import  of  certain  words,  nor  the  convic- 
tions of  their  own  conscience;  but  obliged  them  to 
comply,  not  with  a  mandate  proceeding  from 
the  throne  of  heaven,  but  with  one  coming 
from  the  throne  of  England. 


'o' 


confirmed  by  other  Pontiffs,  in  other  provinces.  The 
adoption  of  the  same  measures  was  also  obtained  from 
Alexander  IV.,  by  St.  Louis,  for  France;  and  from  Pius 
IV.,  by  the  emperor  Charles  V  ,  for  Spain,  and  for  the 
provinces  under  their  subjection." — Alphonsus  de  Ligo- 
rio  de  Prohib.  Libros.  p.  237-8. 

"  The  same  was  also  prohibited  by  the  councils  of  Je- 
rusalem, Mechlin,  Camarace,  and  many  other  councils, 
which  mav  be  seen  in  a  work  published  at  Paris,  in  the 
year  166i,  by  command  of  the  clergy  of  France,  under 
the  title  of  '  A  collection  of  the  authors  who  have  expres- 
ly  condemned  ihe  translation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  into 
tlic  vu/gur  tongue." — St.  de  Ligori,  Id.  p.  224. 


TRANSFERRED?  gl 

To  the  translators  the  king  gave  several 
rules,  "  by  them  to  be  most  carefully  observed." 
These  rules  tended,  as  they  were  designed,  to 
favour  the  established  Church  of  England,  no 
less  than  Bishop  Gardiner's  rules,  in  their  ten- 
dency and  design,  favoured  the  established 
Church  of  Rome. 

In  proof  whereof,  and  for  your  better  satis- 
faction, I  will  transcribe  the  first  three  of  the 
rules,  which,  in  a  very  special  manner,  go- 
verned the  translation  now  in  common  use; 
and  entirely  governed  it,  so  far  as  the  non- 
translation  of  certain  words  is  concerned. 

These  rules  are  as  follows: 

1.  "  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  church, 
commonly  called  the  Bishop's  Bible,  to  be  fol- 
lowed, and  as  little  altered  as  the  original  will 
permit. 

2.  "The  names  of  prophets,  and  the  holy 
writers,  with  the  other  names  in  the  text,  to  be 
retained  as  near  as  may  be,  accordingly  as 
they  are  vulgarly  used. 

3.  "  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept ; 
as  the  word  church,  not  to  be  translated  congre- 
gation ;"  the  words  baptize,  baptism,  not  to  be 
translated  immerse,  immersion  ;  the  word  bishop 
not  to  be  translated  overseer,  &c. 

Such  were  the  rules  imposed  upon  the  trans- 
lators of  our  Bible,  "  by  them  to  be  most  care- 
fully observed." 

Such,  too,  were  the  rules  by  which  the  trans- 
lators were  most  willing  to  be  guided,  since  it 


82 


WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 


was  their  interest,  no  less  than  their  king's, 
to  support  the  established  church.  No  one  at 
all  acquainted  with  the  state  of  affairs  in  Eng- 
land, and  indeed  among  other  nations  where 
religion  is  established  by  law,  need  be  informed 
of  the  very  special  pecuniary  interest,  bishops 
and  priests  have  in  keeping  up  a  union  between 
church  and  state.  They  have  their  living,  as 
it  is  termed ;  and  in  too  many  instances,  they 
have  it  without  lifting  a  finger  to  earn  it !  I  A 
fat  living,  drawn  from  the  people  in  penury 
and  want ! ! ! 

And  in  this  you  see  why  the  Bishop's  Bible, 
as  it  is  called,  was  made  the  example  or  model 
of  king  James'  Bible.* 

*  It  is  well  worth  our  while  to  spend  a  moment  in  view- 
ing- the  chain  of  connexion  which  extends  between  our 
commonly  received  English  Bible,  and  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Bible,  i.  e.  the  Latin  vulgate,  which  was  the  first  to 
transfer  baptize  and  other  words,  rather  than  translate 
them. 

John  Wicliff,  the  great  pioneer  in  the  way  of  trans- 
lating the  Bible  into  the  English  language,  made  the 
vulgate,  by  all  acknowledged  to  be  very  defective,  the 
model  of  his  version;  which,  says  the  Encyclopaedia  Bri- 
tannica,  "is  a  very  literal  translation  from  the  Latin  vul- 
gate." 

The  translations  which  succeeded  to  "Wicliflf's,  were 
little  else  than  improved  revisions  of  his  version.  There 
were  reasons  for  copying  more  or  less  closely,  some  of 
the  peculiar  features  of  Wic  iff's  version,  not  only  be- 
cause it  was  the  first  of  the  kind,  and  executed  by  a  great 
man;  but  also  because,  at  that  time,  it  whs  the  next  thing 
to  death,  if  not  death  itself,  to  translate  the  Scriptures 
into  the  English  tongue,  especially  should  any  dare  to 
translate  the  ecclesiastical  words;   and  further,  he  who 


TRANSFERRED? 


83 


None  of  the  Bibles  translated  before  the 
Bishop's  version,  in  1568,  could  in  any  con- 
siderable degree  satisfy  the  established  church. 

ventured  to  expose  his  life  by  bringing1  forth  to  the  peo- 
ple an  English  version,  had  to  withdraw  from  public 
view,  to  hide  himself  in  some  sequestered  retreat,  where 
he  might  escape  the  observation  of  the  church  of  Home; 
added  to  which,  in  such  a  state  of  excitement  and  soli- 
tude, many  of  the  advantages  which  a  translator  might 
enjoy  under  other  circumstances,  were  now  denied  him. 

The  venerable  Wicliff,  and  some  of  his  successors  in 
the  great  and  daring  work  of  giving  the  word  of  life  to 
man  in  an  English  dress,  acting  upon  the  received  maxim, 
that  "  Half  a  loaf  is  belter  than  no  bread,"  retained  in 
their  respective  versions  more  or  less  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal words  as  they  found  them  in  the  authorized  Roman 
Bible. 

Some  were  more  venturesome  in  giving  full  translations 
than  others.  None  half  so  much  so  as  the  renowned 
Tyndale,  who,  in  many  respects,  has  given  a  better  and 
more  faithful  translation  of  the  New  Testament  than  that 
now  in  common  use.  But  it  cost  him  his  life!  He  died 
a  martyr  to  the  truth,  under  the  tyranny  of  the  persecut- 
ing and  capricious  Henry  VIIL,  King  and  "Supreme 
Head  of  the  Church  of  England."  In  September,  1536, 
he  suffered  the  dreadful  sentence  which  condemned  him 
to  the  flames  for  no  other  crime  than  putting  into  his 
version  of  the  New  Testament  congregation  instead  of 
church;  love,  rather  than  charity,-  favour,  instead  oi' grace, 
&c.  But  his  desire  to  promote  the  good  of  souls,  by  giv- 
ing to  the  world  the  Holy  Bible  faithfully  translated,  his 
ruling  passion,  was  strong  in  death.  While  bound  to  the 
stake,  his  dying  voice  was  distinctly  heard  in  his  fervent 
intercessions  for  his  royal  persecutor.  "  Lord,  open  the 
King  of  England's  eyes,"  and  he  died.  But  his  transla- 
tion lives  to  inform  us  that  "church"  is  a  word  which 
ought  never  to  have  been  adopted  into  an  English  Bible, 
and  that  it,  together  with  all  the  words  termed  ecclesiasti- 
cal, ought  to  have  been  so  rendered  as  to  make  known  its 
original  import. 


84  WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

During  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  much  was 
done  to  aid  forward  the  Reformation ;   chiefly 


In  1535,  one  year  before  the  martyrdom  of  the 
blessed  Tyndale,  who  gave  his  life  for  the  truth,  Bishop 
Coverdale  translated  the  Bible  into  English.  But  he 
rendered  his  version  less  obnoxious  to  the  king",  to  whom 
it  was  dedicated,  as  follows:  "  Unto  the  most  victorious 
Prynce,  and  our  most  gracyous  Soveraynge  Lord,  King 
Henry  the  Eyghth,  Kynge  of  England,  Defender  of  the 
Faith,  &x."  From  this  dedication,  and  other  circum- 
stances, there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Bishop  Cover- 
dale  furnished  his  translation  at  the  instance  of  the  king, 
if  not  by  his  royal  mandate. 

For  Henry,  when  commanding  his  subjects  to  "detest 
and  abhor"  Tyndale's  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
promised  them,  as  an  inducement  to  comply  with  his 
command,  that  "he  would  cause  the  New  Testament  to 
be  by  learned  men,  faithfully  and  purely  translated  into 
the  English  tongue."  Moreover,  there  was  a  royal  in- 
junction making  it  the  duty  of  the  parson  of  every  parish 
church  within  the  realm, to  furnish  his  particular  congre- 
gation with  two  copies  of  the  Bible,  one  in  Latin,  and 
the  other  in  English,  that  every  man,  if  he  be  so  disposed, 
might  come  and  read. 

Now  Coverdale  translated  not,  as  he  ought,  out  of  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  .Scriptures,  but  as  he  ac- 
knowledges, "out  of  the  Latin  and  Dutch."  Still  keep- 
ing the  Latin  vulgate  as  the  model  after  which  to  shape  in 
certain  respects  every  after  version. 

Two  years  later,  1537,  what  is  called  Thomas  Mat- 
thew's Bible  appeared.  That  this  version  also  was  pre- 
pared and  printed  by  the  order  of  the  king  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  as  the  title  page  evidently  shows;  "set  forlhe 
by  the  king's  most  gracyous  license."  There  can  be  little 
question  that  Coverdale  lent  no  inconsiderable  aid  in 
furnishing  this  work  for  the  press. 

In  1539,  Cranmer's  Bible  appeared  in  large  folio,  on 
which  account  it  was  called  the  great  Bible. 

Matthew's  Bible  did  not  give  any  general  satisfaction. 


TRANSFERRED? 


85 


by  repealing  those  wicked  acts  of  parliament, 
passed  in  the  reign  of  his  father,  Henry  VIII. 

It  was  marked  with  too  near  an  affinity  with  Tyndale's. 
It  was  particularly  liable  to  objection,  because  some  of 
Tyndale's  notes  had  been  introduced  into  it.  This  was 
enough  to  condemn  it  for  ever  in  the  mind  of  the  esta- 
blished church.  Every  thing-  that  bore  the  name  of  Tyn- 
dale  was  highly  displeasing-  to  Henry  and  his  court,  who 
controlled  all  religious  affairs. 

Cranmer,  to  gratify  the  king,  revised  Matthew's  Bible, 
and  adapted  it  nearer  to  his  majesty's  pleasure,  and  less 
repugnant  to  the  bishops  and  clergy.  That  the  reader  may 
be  made  somewhat  accpiainted  with  the  great  opposition 
which  prevailed  in  common  among  the  friends  of  Roman- 
ism and  those  of  the  English  church,  against  Tyndale's 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  1  will  here  transcribe 
some  few  passages  from  two  of  their  writers,  Dr.  Martia 
and  Sir  Thomas  More.  Dr.  Martin,  reader  of  divinity  to 
the  College  at  Doway,  says,  "The  Catholicke  church  of 
our  countrie  did  not  il  to  furbid  and  burne  suche  bookes 
which  were  so  translated  by  Tyndal  and  the  like,  as  be- 
ing not  indeede  God's  booke,  word,  or  scripture  but  the 
divel's  word."  Discoverie  of  the  Corrup.  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, p.  65.  Sir  Thomas  More,  after  having  mentioned 
the  following  errors  in  Tyndale's  translation,  viz.  his 
making  use  of  the  words  "  knowledge"  rather  than  "con- 
fession,-" "congregation"  for  "church,-"  "repentance"  sub- 
stituted for  " penance,-"  "  love"  for  "  charity,-"  and  "senior" 
for  "priest,"  says,  "he,"  Tyndale,  "  wolde  make  ye  peo- 
ple byleve  that  we  shoulde  beleve  nothyng  but  playne 
scrypture,  in  which  poynte  he  techeth  a  playne  pestylent 
heresye."  Again,  Sir  Thomas  says,  "he  wolde  advyse 
any  man  neither  to  rede  these  heretykes  bokes  nor  mine, 
but  occupy  theyr  myndes  better,  and  standynge  fermely 
by  the  Catholyke  faith  of  this  XV.  C.  yere,  never  onys 
muse  uppon  these  newe-fangled  heresy  es  ;  but  if  at  the  pe- 
rell  if  daynger  to  burne  both  here  and  in  hell,  he  cannot 
hold  his  yachynge  fyngers  frame  theysepoysened  bokes,  then 
would  I  counsayle  hym  in  any  wyse  to  rede  therewith  such 
8 


86 


WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 


which  prohibited  the  translation  of  the  Bible. 
But  no  sooner  was  Elizabeth,  as  also  her  sister 
and  immediate  royal  predecessor,  sealed  upon 
the  throne  of  England,  than  she  gave  dire 
proof  of  being  in  love  with  the  aspect  of  things 
as  in  the  times  of  her  father  Henry.  In  Janu- 
ary, 1558,  an  act  was  passed  in  parliament  for 
restoring  to  the  crown  the  former  jurisdiction 
over  all  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Soon  after  the 
design  was  formed  to  secure  a  new  translation 
of  the  Bible  under  the  direction  of  Bishop 
Parker,  who  was  devoted  to  the  interests  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  church  establishment. 
His  version  was  compiled,  and  elegantly  print- 
ed in  the  year  1568,  and  called  the  Bishops' 
Bible.  This  version  claimed  to  be  nothing 
more  than  a  revision  of  Cranmer's  Bible,  as 
Bishop  Parker  said  himself  in  his  preface,  "The 
revisers  were  directed  to  follow  the  former 
translation,  (Cranmer's)  more  than  any  other." 
Now  the  Bishops'  Bible  was  purposely  pre- 
pared to  suit  the  times  and  wishes  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,*  and  all  may  know  what  kind  of  a 


thyng-es  as  are  wrytten  ag-ainst  them."  Again,  "Tyn- 
dale's  heresies  farre  exceed  and  passe;  and  incomparably 
offende  the  majestie  of  our  Lorde  God,  than  all  the  set- 
tynge  uppe  of  Bell,  and  Baal,  and  Belzabub,  and  all  the 
devyls  in  hell."     Confutation,  pp.  36.  96. 

*  C.  Butler,  Esq.  styles  it  "the  F.piscopal  translation, 
made  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  under  the  direction 
of  Matthew  Parker,  the  celebrated  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury."    See  his  Horse  Biblicx,  p.  123,  edit,  of  1799. 

In  what  respect  it  was  held  by  the  friends  of  the  Refor- 


TRANSFERRED? 


87 


Bible  would  suit  her  royal  favour,  by  acquaint- 
ing themselves  with  her  character  and  doings. 
Says  her  biographer,  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britanica,  "Doubtless  she  was  a  woman  of 
singular  capacity  and  extraordinary  acquire- 
ments; and  if  we  could  forget  the  story  of  the 
Scottish  Mary,  and  of  her  favourite  Essex,  to- 
gether with  the  burning  of  a  few  Anabaptists; 
in  short,  could  we  forbear  to  contemplate  her 
character  through  the  medium  of  religion  and 
morality,  we  might  pronounce  her  the  most 
illustrious  of  illustrious  women."  But  her  illus- 
trious character  has  been  so  sullied  by  deeds 
of  infamy  and  cruelly,  as  to  render  it  impos- 
4ble  to  be  regilded.* 

mation,  may  be  learned  by  the  nickname  it  received 
among*  some  not  friendly  to  the  established  church,  viz. 
"  Elizabeth's  opposition  Bible.'* 

*  The  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  the  throne  was, 
at  first,  cause  of  great  joy  to  the  promoters  of  the  Refor- 
mation. They  anticipated  better  things  than  had  fallen, 
to  their  lot  during-  the  reign  of  her  inhuman  sister,  whose 
"death  was  lamented  only  by  her  popish  clergy."  But 
in  such  anticipations  they  were  much  disappointed. 

Elizabeth  manifested  little  pleasure  in  lending- her  royal 
influence  for  the  promotion  of  any  reform  which  inter- 
fered in  the  least  with  the  union  of  church  and  state. 
Among-  the  first  acts  of  her  parliament,  the  two  bloody 
and  famous  acts,  entitled  "The  Act  of  Supremacy,"  and 
"The  Act  of  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer,"  were 
passed.  The  former  gave,  rise  to  a  new  ecclesiastical 
court,  called  "  The  Court  of  High  Commission,  which, 
by  the  exercise  of  its  unlimited  power  and  authority, 
became  the  engine  of  inconceivable  oppression  to  multi- 
tudes of  the  Queen's  best  subjects.     The  latter  Act  at- 


88  WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

Now  this  Bishops',  or,  if  you  please,  Eliza- 
beth's Bible,  was  made  the  model  of  King  James' 
version.  Why,  I  ask,  did  the  king  make  the 
Bishops'  Bible  the  model  of  his  translation? 
There  was  nothing  in  it  that  should  have  so 
highly  recommended  it  to  his  royal  favour. 
Indeed,  the  very  auspices  under  which  it  was 
introduced  into  the  church,  ought  to  have 
taught  his  highness  that  it  formed  but  a  very 
poor  exemplar  for  him  to  follow  !  Why  did 
not  the  king  adopt  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
Scriptures,  the  very  languages  in  which  the 
divine  messages  were  indited  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  make  them  the  worthy  models  of 


tempted,    indeed,    to  establish  a  perfect  uniformity  in 
public  worship;  but  it  could  never  be  effected." 

By  her  royal  proclamation,  she  sent  forth  hev  Jiffy  dis- 
tinct injunctions.  "  She  still  retained  a  crucifix  upon  the 
altar,  with  lights  burning  before  it  in  her  own  chapel,  when 
three  bishops  officiated,  all  in  rich  copes  before  the  idol. 
Instead  of  Stripping"  religion  of  the  numerous  pompous 
ceremonies  with  which  it  was  encumbered,  she  was  in- 
clined rather  to  keep  it  as  near  as  possible  to  the  Romish 
ritual;  and  even  some  years  after  her  accession,  one  of 
her  chaplains  having-  preached  in  defence  of  the  real  pre- 
sence, she  presented  her  public  thanks  to  him  for  his 
pains  and  piety.  Her  majesty  having  appointed  a  com- 
mittee of  divines  to  review  king  Edward's  liturgy,  she 
commanded  them  to  strike  out  all  passages  offensive  to 
the  pope,  and  to  make  the  people  easy  about  the  corpo- 
real presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament.  The  liturgy 
was,  therefore,  exceedingly  well  fitted  to  the  approbation 
of  the  papists."  Brooks'  Lives  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i. 
pp.  18,  19.  Bishop  Burnet's  His.  vol.  ii.  Heylin's  His. 
p,  124,  edit.  1670.    Strype's  Annals,  vol.  i.  pp.  41 — 44,  69 


TRANSFERRED?  gg 

his  new  version?  And  now,  forsooth,  all  Pedo- 
baptists,  every  where,  make  King  James'  Bible 
and  the  Latin  vulgate  the  unworthy  models  of 
their  translations.* 


*  The  Managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  on  the 
17th  of  February,  1836,  resolved  that  they  will  not  aid  in 
translating,  printing,  or  distributing  any  version  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  which  does  not  conform  in  the  principle  of 
its  translation,  to  the  common  English  version.  One  of  the 
interpreters  of  that  resolution  says,  the  English  version 
is  a  specimen.  Here  let  the  reader  distinctly  observe  the 
rule  by  which  all  the  missionaries  in  connexion  with  this 
society  are,  for  the  future,  to  be  guided  in  their  transla- 
tions of  the  Bible  into  foreign  languages,  viz.  according  to 
the  English  version.  Then,  according-  to  their  own  inter- 
pretation of  their  resolution,  the  English  version  is  not 
simply  a  rule,  but  a  specimen,-  that  is,  an  example  or  pattern 
which  the  translator  is  to  follow,  in  giving-  the  word  of 
life  to  the  millions  of  deathless  spirits  who  need  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  to  whom  we 
are  bound  by  every  sentiment  of  piety,  justice,  and  hu- 
manity, to  give  the  sacred  Scriptures  entire,  that  they 
may  read  in  their  own  "tongues  the  wonderful  works  of 
God."  But  now  the  missionary  who  has  left  the  endear- 
ments of  home  and  gospel  light,  and  gone  far  distant  into 
heathen  lands  to  bear  messages  of  salvation,  sits  down  to 
give  to  the  heathen  a  knowledge  of  the  way  of  life,  after 
twenty  years  toil  and  hard  labour  in  acquiring  an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  language,  customs,  and  manners  of 
the  people  whom  he  wishes  to  bless  with  the  pure  word 
of  God.  He  opens  before  him  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
Scriptures  with  a  prayerful  solicitude  to  express,  in  the 
translation  which  he  is  about  to  make,  precisely,  if  pos- 
sible, the  sense  of  the  inspired  writer;  neither  to  take 
from  or  add  to  the  word  of  God.  But  the  English  ver- 
sion lies  unfolded  at  his  elbow,  upon  which  he  must  keep 
an  attentive  eye.  In  the  progress  of  his  heavy  task,  he 
meets  now  and  then  with  a  word,  the  meaning  of  which 
8# 


90 


WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 


We  ask  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  why  they 
should  make  their  translations  of  the  Scrip- 

the  English  version  does  not  express.  Perhaps  the  ori- 
ginal word  is  not  translated,  only  transferred,  or  conveyed 
over  from  one  language  to  another.  He  pauses!  He  prays! 
He  reads  the  Greek  text,  and  understands  its  precise  im- 
port !  He  then  turns  to  his  English  Bible,  and  there  he  finds 
the  Greek  word  not  translated,  but  adopted  into  that  ver- 
sion; and  if  he  follows  the  English  Bible  as  a  specimen  of 
hiding  from  the  heathen  a  divine  and  positive  institution 
of  the  gospel,  he  must  give  them  Greek  without  a  Gram- 
mar or  Lexicon  by  which  they  may  understand  the  im- 
port of  those  Greek,  to  them  barbarous  terms.  What 
now  shall  this  missionary  do?  The  English  version  is  a 
specimen,  or  an  example  of  handling  the  word  of  God, 
from  which  he  is  not  to  deviate,  and  yet  that  version  blots 
out  what  God  lias  made  plain.  Shall  he  translate,  or  shall 
he  transfer?  Shall  he  select  a  word  which  the  heathen 
understand,  and  which  means  precisely  the  same  as  the 
original  Greek  word,  and  put  that  into  the  version  which 
he  is  making?  or  shall  he  adopt  into  his  translation  the 
Greek  word  which  the  heathen  do  not  and  cannot  under- 
stand? Shall  he  obey  God,  or  shall  he  obey  man?  Shall 
he  remember  that  holy  men  wrote  the  Scriptures  as  they 
were  moved  upon  by  the  holy  God?  or  shall  he  forget  the 
gracious  influences  of  the  Spirit,  which  determined  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  wrote  the  Scriptures,  the  use  of 
the  very  words  in  relation  to  the  disposal  of  which,  his 
mind  is  now  vacillating?  Shall  he,  in  fine,  follow  as  a 
guide  the  import  of  the  original  language  in  which  the 
truth  of  God  was  revealed  to  the  world?  or  shall  he  fol- 
low a  version  made  by  fallible  and  erring  men;  who,  in 
many  respects,  did  justice  to  their  translation;  but  who, 
owing  to  prepossessed  opinions  in  favour  of  certain  prac- 
tices, which  time  and  the  decrees  of  councils  had  ren- 
dered dear  to  them,  and  owing  to  the  direction  of  their 
king,  to  make  their  vers, on  conform  in  certain  particu- 
lars to  a  Bishop's  Bible,  did  depart  from  the  evident  and 
only  path  in  which  a  translator  should  constantly  abide? 


TRANSFERRED  ? 


91 


tures  after  the  example  of  James'  version,  and 
not  after  the  original  Scriptures?     Why  not 


While  the  missionary  is  thus  solemnly  impressed  with 
a  sense  of  his  fearful  responsibility  before  God,  his  final 
judge,  and  knows  that  his  commission  from  heaven  should 
weigh  down  every  other  consideration;  and  knows,  too, 
that  the  English  version  does  not  express  the  sense  of  some 
parts  of  the  Bible;  while  he  is  solemnly  impressed  with  a 
sense  of  these  things,  he  looks  around  him,  he  finds  him- 
self far  away  from  kindred  and  friends  to  whom  he  can 
look  for  the  least  support;  he  thinks  of  his  wife  and  little 
ones,  dear  to  his  soul,  as  he  puts  forth  his  trembling  hand 
to  the  commission  which  he  received  from  the  Pedobap- 
tist  Board  that  sent  him  forth,  and  here  he  finds  that  he 
is  forbidden  to  translate  the  "ecclesiastical  words,"  such 
as  relate  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  some  others, 
on  pain  of  being  excluded  all  further  support  from  that 
Board  which  sent  him  into  his  foreign  field.' !  !  The  Pedo- 
baptist  missionary  translators  are  compelled,  on  pain  of 
exclusion  from  the  patronage  of  the  Board,  not  to  trans- 
late, but  to  transfer  those  words  called  "ecclesiastical." 
They  are  not  left  to  act  in  the  fear  of  God,  but  forced  to 
comply  with  the  party  feelings  and  wishes  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  Bible  Society,  called  the  "American  Bible  Society. 

Now,  Baptists  cannot,  dare  not  favour  such  a  principle 
of  translation.  Baptists  charge  their  missionary  transla- 
tors to  express  in  their  versions  the  very  sense  of  the  ori- 
ginal text.  The  Baptist  Board  makes  it  the  duty  of  all 
their  missionaries  to  be  guided  in  their  translations  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  not  by  the  version  of  king  James,  or 
Bishop  Parker,  or  king  Henry,  but  by  the  original  of 
King  Jesus. 

Following  this  principle,  in  giving  to  the  heathen  the 
word  of  life,  is  the  enormous  sin  which  has  excluded  Bap- 
tists from  any  consistent  participation  with,  and  from  the 
patronage  of  the  "American  Bible  Society. "  But  we 
glory  in  the  principle,  while  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
oppose  it. 


92  WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

go  back  to  the  very  fountain  where  you  find 
the  word  of  the  Lord  in  its  purest  state,  and 
thence  draw  for  the  healing  of  the  nations? 
Why  not  make  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  origi- 
nals, and  not  James'  version,  your  pattern? 

James'  translation,  or  more  properly,  revi- 
sion of  earlier  translations,  was  prepared  by, 
and  designed  for  the  established  church  of 
England.  Well  did  the  cunning  sovereign 
order  that  the  Bishops'  Bible  should  be  closely 
followed!  that  the  old  ecclesiastical  words  should 
be  retained! 

But,  as  I  before  remarked,  the  king  had  a 
design  no  less  than  Bishop  Parker,  Bishop 
Cranmer,  Bishop  Gardiner,  and  Henry  VIII., 
all  of  whom  had  a  church  established  by  law  in 
their  eye,  and  the  Scriptures,  when  translated, 
must  be  so  guarded  and  moulded  as  not  to  in- 
terfere with  this  darling  object  of  their  aspir- 
ing ambition,  nor  subject  them,  in  their  arro- 
gant importance,  to  the  humility  and  fancied 
inconvenience  of  being  immersed  so  long  as 
they  could  suppress  their  convictions  of  con- 
science, and  satisfy  themselves  with  being 
sprinkled.  But  to  do  this,  the  old  ecclesiasti- 
cal words  must  not  be  faithfully  translated  into 
English.  To  show  you  still  further  the  great 
injustice,  that  must  characterize  a  translation 
executed  upon  such  a  contracted  party  policy 
as  that  which  seeks  to  accomplish  its  aims  by 
covering  up  in  an  unknown  tongue,  such  por- 
tions of  the  word  of  God,  which,  if  fairly  trans- 


TRANSFERRED  ? 


93 


lated,  would  betray  the  invalidity  of  their  prac- 
tices ;  let  me  direct  your  attention  to  Acts 
xii.  4,  where  our  English  Bible  has  Easter, 
whereas  passover  is  the  correct  translation  of 
the  original  word. 

The  Greek  word  for  passover,  is  rtacr^a, 
pascha.  But  our  translators  neither  gave  us 
the  Greek  word,  nor  yet  a  translation  of  it. 
To  support,  from  the  Scripture,  the  idea  of 
Easter-Sunday  and  Easter-day,  &c,  they  sup- 
press the  original  word  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
moved  the  inspired  penmen  to  use,  and  em- 
ployed the  Saxon  word  Easter,  which  is  the 
name  of  the  goddess  Eastera,  worshiped  by 
the  Saxons,  and  in  honour  of  whom,  sacrifices 
were  annually  offered.  Now  in  this  they  com- 
mit two  evils.  They  suppressed  or  blotted  out 
the  import  of  the  word  as  intended  by  the 
apostle,  and  then  introduced  another  word 
with  a  sense  entirely  different  from  that 
which  the  original  signifies.  Concealing  from 
the  understanding  of  the  people  the  idea  of 
passover,  they  adopt  the  name  of  a  heathen 
goddess,  making  it  stand  for  a  festive-day,  sa- 
credly to  be  observed,  as  of  divine  appoint- 
ment. 

Such  too  is  the  liberty  which  our  translators 
were  obliged  to  take  with  other  words,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  imposed  upon  them  by  the  king, 
to  support  an  ecclesiastical  establishment. 

The  Greek  word  fxxtojsca,  ecclesia,  signifies  an 
assembly  or  congregation ;   and  when  applied 


94  VVHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 

to  a  community  of  faithful  and  devoted  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  voluntarily  united  to  maintain 
the  visible  worship  of  God,  it  means  a  religious 
or  Christian  congregation. 

But  by  suppressing  the  original  import  of 
the  Greek  word,  and  adopting  the  German 
word  church  (kirch,)  they  make  it  to  signify 
an  ecclesiastical  establishment,  a  synod  of  clergy 
or  presbyters;  the  pope  himself  as  head  of  the 
church;  a  general  council;  and  by  a  figure  of 
speech,  it  is  made  to  mean  the  building  in 
which  ecclesiastical  bodies  assemble.  See 
Watts'  Logic,  part  i.  civ.  §  6.* 

With  no  better  show  of  reason  is  the  word 
bishop,  instead  of  overseer  put  into  our  Bible, 
underthe  design  of  keeping  up  the  illusive  ideaoi 
a  distinction  among  ministers  in  point  of  power 

*  Mr.  J.  Home  Tooke  in  his  Diversions  of  Parley,  has 
the  following-  remark:  "Church,  for  instance,  (Domiui- 
cum,  aliquid)  is  an  adjective;  and  formerly  a  must  wicked 
one,-  whose  misinterpretation  caused  more  slaughter  and 
pillage  of  mankind,  than  all  the  other  cheats  tog-ether." 
First  Amer.  edition,  vol.  ii.  p.  15,  402. 

This  same  patriotic  individual,  alike  observant  of  the 
wrong's  practiced  both  in  church  and  state,  with  Hardy, 
Thelwall  and  others,  members  of  the  London  Correspond- 
ing Society,  was  indicted  for  high  treason  because  he 
maintained  the  right  of  the  people  to  an  equal  represent- 
ation in  the  parliament  of  Great  Britain.  In  this  com- 
mendable effort  Tooke  and  his  coadjutors  were  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  the  bishops  of  Fug  and. 

The  very  patriotic  spirit  of  Mr.  Tooke  is  evinced  in  the 
case  of  his  raising  a  subscription  in  England  to  relieve 
the  sufferings  of  the  citizens  of  Boston,  when  the  mar- 
shal laws  were  enforced  against  them,  for  opposing  Bri- 
tish taxation,  and  for  destroying  the  tea. 


TRANSFERRED  ?  95 

of  conferring  ordination,  &c.  No  such  grade  of 
superior  power  lodged  in  some  ministers  to  lord 
it  over  others,  has  any  foundation  in  the  original 
Scriptures. 

By  this  long,  though,  I  would  hope,  not  un- 
important digression  from  our  subject,  you 
will  be  enabled  to  see  why  baptize,  baptism,  &c. 
are  not  translated  but  transferred  into  our 
English  Bible.  To  translate  them  would  be- 
tray the  erroneous  practice  of  the  church  of 
England,  and  force  all  her  bishops  and  minis- 
ters to  confess  that  they  had  been  in  an  egre- 
gious error,  and  that  the  Baptists  were  right. 
To  save  themselves  such  deep  mortification, 
says  Mr.  Calderwood,  an  assembly  of  bishops, 
convened,  A.  D.  1604,  reported  to  King  James 
that  "they  found  all  doctrines,  ceremonies  and 
discipline well'm  the  church;  and  with  great  ear- 
nestness, upon  their  knees,  craved  that  nothing 
might  be  altered,  Jest Romishrecusants,  punished 
by  the  statutes  for  their  disobedience,  and  Pu- 
ritans, punished  by  deprivation  from  callings 
and  livings  for  nonconformity,  should  say  they 
had  cause  to  insult  them,  as  men  who  had  tra- 
vailed to  bind  them  to  that,  which  by  their  own 
mouths  was  now  confessed  to  be  erroneous." 
Hist,  of  Reform.  Scot.  474,  and  Hist.  Account 
of  further  Attempts  for  Reformation,  p.  34. 

The  king  was  not  backward  in  granting  the 
fervent  request  of  his  prelatical  petitioners. 
Royal  orders  were  issued  obliging  all  who 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  church  establishment 


96 


WHY  WAS  BAPTIZE 


and  her  customs,  to  a  strict  conformity,  on  pain 
of  being  removed.  The  very  words  of  King 
James  I.  were,  "If  any  be  of  an  opposite  and 
turbulent  spirit,  I  will  have  them  enforced  to  a 
conformity."     Rapin,  vol.  ii.  162. 

"  The  king  intimated  that  he  would  have 
regard  to  the  tender  consciences  of  such  Ca- 
tholics as  could  not  comply  with  the  received 
doctrines  of  the  church  of  England;  but  in 
this  there  was  not  the  least  indulgence  for  the 
tender  consciences  of  the  Puritans.  These 
were  all  a  set  of  obstinate  people,  who  de- 
served to  have  no  favour  shown  them."  Ra- 
pin's  Hist,  of  England,  vol.  ii.  163. 

Well  did  Bishop  Burnet  observe,  respecting 
the  king,  "That  from  the  year  1606,  to  his 
dying  day,  he  continued  always  writing  and 
talking  against  popery,  but  acting  for  it." 
History  of  his  own  times,  vol.  i.  12. 

Such  was  King  James,  and  such,  so  far  as 
promoted  his  ambition,  and  church  establish- 
ment, is  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  was 
conformed  to  his  own  pleasure  in  union  with  the 
pleasure  of  his  bishops  and  clergy.* 

*  Dr.  Geddes  says,  "The  truth  is,  and  why  should  it 
not  be  spoken,  that  James'  translators  did  little  more 
than  copy  the  Genevan  version  ;  the  difference  being  on 
the  pari,  of  the  former,  chiefly  in  a  more  scrupulous  adhe- 
sion to  the  letter  of  the  original,  and  in  the  superabundant 
insertion  of  italics  to  supply  its  apparent  deficiency.  1 
will  venture  to  affirm,  and  that  with  fullest  conviction,  that 
James'  translators  have  less  merit  than  any  of  their  prede- 


TRANSFERRED  ?  97 

This  is  the  translation,  which,  according  to 
Pedobaptists,  must  be  made  the  model  of  all 
succeeding  translations  !* 

King  James  of  Erigland,  and  not  King  Jesus 
of  Zlon,  Is,  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  made 
to  control  the  translation  of  the  word  of  life  ! !  /f 

cessors,  and  that  the  version  of  Tyndale,  revised  by  Cover- 
dab,  is  a  far  jusier  representation  of  the  original!" 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  learned  of  men, 
and  a  Pedobaptist  by  profession.  Such  too  is  the  strong1 
language  he  employs  in  expressing  his  opinion  relative 
to  the  imperfections  of  our  English  Bible,  called  King 
James'  version,  because  prepared  by  his  authority  and 
printed  for  his  use  in  the  established  English  church. 
This  is  the  Bible  now  adopted  as  an  example  of  all  Pedo- 
baptist translations! 

*  By  keeping  the  word  baptize  untranslated,  and  left 
to  priests  for  an  interpretation,  it  can  be  made  to  mean 
just  what  they  please,  whether  sprinkling-,  pouring, 
washing,  purifying,  wetting,  crossing,  &c,  and  the  peo- 
ple be  none  the  wiser.  Well  did  the  learned  Mr.  Van 
Mildert  observe  respecting  the  daring  presumption  of  man 
in  appropriating  the  words  of  Scripture  to  support  his 
own  notions,  "  The  privilege  of  using  the  word  may  be  arro- 
gant I  ;/  monopolised  by  the  ministers." — Bampt.  Lee.  p.  217. 

j"  During  the  reign  of  King  James  I.,  and  not  long* 
after  the  famous  assembly  of  divines  and  lords  at  West- 
minster, and  little  subsequent  to  the  time  when  "the 
said  assembly  presented  to  parliament  the  confession  of 
faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  catechisms,  the  directory  of 
public  worship,  and  their  humble  advice  concerning  church, 
government  ,•"  and  bound  themselves  by  a  bond  of  union, 
entitled,  "  A  solemn  league  and  covenant  for  reforma- 
tion and  defence  of  religion,  the  honour  and  happiness 
of  the  king,  and  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  three  king- 
doms of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland" — a  little  after 
these  things,  Mr.  Brooks  says: 

"An  ordinance  soon  passed  to  set  aside  the  Book  of 


98  IMPORT  OF  THE 


Section  IV. 

THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  TERM  BAPTIZE,  AS  LAID  DOWN  IN 
OUR  MOST  APPROVED  LEXICONS. 

Let  us  inquire  still  further,  what  our  Saviour 
meant,  when  he  used  the  Greek  word  baptize; 
and  hereby  again  show  that  the  ordinance  of 

Common  Prayer,  and  to  establish  the  directory.  The 
Presbyterians  now  gaining-  the  ascendancy,  discovered  a 
strong  propensity  to  grasp  at  the  same  arbitrary  power 
as  that  under  which  they  had  formerly,  and  for  a  long 
time  groaned.  The  parliament  published  two  ordi- 
nances, one  against  the  preaching  of  unordained  minis- 
ters, the  other  against  blasphemy  and  heresy;  both  of 
which  became  the  engines  of  oppression  and  persecu- 
tion. The  latter,  says  Mr.  Neal,  is  one  of  the  most 
shocking  laws  1  ever  met  with  in  restraint  of  religious 
liberty,  and  shows  that  the  governing  Presbyterians  would 
have  made  a  terrible  use  of  their  power,  had  they  been 
supported  by  the  sword  of  the  civil  magistrate.  Several 
ministers  of  puritan  principles  became  sufferers  by  these 
ordinances.  Mr.  Clarkson  having  embraced  the  senti- 
ments of  the  anti-Pedobaptists,  was  cast  into  prison,  and 
required  to  recant  for  the  marvellous  sin  of  dipping.  Mr. 
Lamb,  Mr.  Denne,  and  Mr.  Kno  l\s,  all  of  the  same  de- 
nomination, were  apprehended  and  committed  to  prison. 
Mi'.  Knollys  was  afterwards  prosecuted  at  the  session, 
and  sent  prisoner  to  London.  Mr.  Cotes  was  tried  for 
his  life,  but  acquitted.  Mr.  Piddle  was  cast  into  prison, 
where  he  remained  seven  years." — Brooks,  Vol.  i.  pp. 
93,  94. 

All  these  things,  and  vastly  more  than  I  can  here  men- 
tion, did  Baptists  sufier  for  the  "marvellous  sin  of 
dipping." 


TERM  BAPTIZE. 


99 


baptism  can  be  administered,  only  by  an  im- 
mersion of  the  body  of  believers. 

Now  for  a  full  conviction  of  this  truth  it  is 
necessary,  in  the  first  place,  to  ascertain  the 
true  import  of  the  word  baptize,  as  laid  down  in 
our  most  approved  lexicons,  where  the  word  is 
explained,  not  only  as  understood  by  the  lexi- 
cographers themselves,  but  also,  as  substan- 
tiated by  referring  to  its  meaning  as  used  by 
both  sacred  and  classic,  authors.  These  lexi- 
cographers were  such  men  and  scholars  as 
not  to  admit  of  the  least  reasonable  suspicion 
that  they  would  wish  to  favour  Baptist  views 
of  the  word  in  question.  Much  the  more  so, 
in  this  case,  since  they  are  entirely  disinte- 
rested, or  such  whose  prejudices  are  all  in 
favour  of  Pedohaptist  views,  and  who  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  found  some  authority 
to  justify  sprinkling  as  one  of  the  definitions 
of  baptize.  Rut  as  honest  men,  seven  fold 
better  acquainted  with  the  Greek  tongue  than 
most  of  those  who  affect  to  judge  them,  they 
gave  to  baptize  no  definition  which  can  in 
any  way  favour  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

James  Donnegan,  M.  D.,  in  his  royal  octavo 
lexicon,  printed  first  at  London,  England,  and 
reprinted  at  Boston,  U.  S.,  under  the  judicious 
band  of  R.  B.  Pation,  has  given  to  the  verb 
baptize  the  following  definitions:  "  to  immerse 
into  a  liquid;  to  submerge"  [?'.  e.  put  or  plunge 
under  water  ;]  "  to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate ; 
to  drench;  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw;  pass. 


100 


IMPORT  OF  THE 


perf.,  to  be  immersed.  Metaphor,  to  confound 
totally:' 

To  the  noun  baptism  he  gave,  "immersion; 
submersion;  the  act  of  washing  or  bathing:'' 

Mr.  Greenfield,  in  his  excellent  Polymiorian 
Greek  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  defines 
baptize  as  follows:  "to  immerse,  immerge,  sub- 
merge, sink ;  to  trash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse  ; 
to  immerse,  administer  the  rite  of  baptism;  met. 
to  overwhelm  one  with  arty  thing,  to  bestow  liber- 
ally, imbue  largely ;  pass,  to  be  immersed  in,  or 
overwhelmed  with  miseries,  oppressed  with  ca- 
lamities:' 

The  indefatigable  E.  Robinson,  of  Andover, 
Mass.,  in  his  "Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament,  from  the  Clavis  Philolo- 
gica  of  Christ.  Abr.  Wahl,  of  Saxony,"  gives 
the  same  definitions  to  baptize  as  Mr.  Green- 
field. 

I  shall  mention  the  definitions  given  to  bap- 
tize and  baptism,  but  by  one  more  lexicogra- 
pher, the  pious  and  excellent  Dr.  J.  Jones,  with 
whose  accurate  judgment,  every  competent 
scholar  and  critic  concurs. 

Baptize,  "  to  plunge  ;  to  plunge  in  ivater, 
to  dip ;  to  bury,  overwhelm" 

Baptism,  "  immersion ;  met.  plunging  in 
affliction:' 

Now  let  it  be  observed,  that  not  one  of  these 
authors,  and  to  the  same  effect  might  be 
quoted  every  lexicographer  of  acknowledged 
authority,  both  in  Scripture  and  classic  Greek, 


TERM  BAPTIZE.  10  j 

not  one  of  them  gives  to  baptize  the  definition 
sprinkle  or  pour.  They  would  have  done  so, 
could  they  have  found  one  solitary  example 
in  the  whole  compass  of  the  Greek  language 
where  baptize  could,  in  any  justice,  be  ren- 
dered sprinhle  or  pour. 

But  no  such  example  could  be  found  ;  there- 
fore, as  men,  enjoying  a  high  reputation  in  the 
learned  world,  they  rose  above  that  littleness 
which,  out  of  deference  to  some  favourite  sect, 
seeks,  on  the  one  hand,  to  append  unauthorized 
definitions  to  words;  and,  on  the  other,  pre- 
tends that  the  same  words  are  incapable  of  a 
translation. 

Moreover,  you  will  perceive  that  all  their 
definitions  express  or  imply  immersion. 

The  first  and  primary  idea  is  immersion, 
immerse,  submerge,  plunge  or  dip  into  any 
thing. 

The  secondary  idea  is  to  soak  thoroughly,  to 
saturate,  to  wash,  to  drench. 

Please  take  notice  :  do  you  immerse,  plunge 
or  dip, a  thing  barely  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
it?  Can  you  ivash  a  thing  merely  by  sprink- 
ling? Does  a  laundress  wash  her  clothes  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  them? 

Equally  absurd  is  the  idea  of  soaking  or 
drenching  a  thing  by  a  mere  sprinkling.  A 
few  citations  from  eminent  writers  will  abun- 
dantly show  that  these  words  have  meanings 
kindred  to  an  immersion  or  plunging  into 
the  water. 
9# 


102  IMPORT  OF  THE 

"  Drill'd  through  the  sandy  stratum  every  way, 
The  waters  with  the  sandy  stratum  rise, 
And  clear  and  sweeten  as  they  soak  along1." 

Thomson. 

"  Mine  is  the  drenching  in  the  sea  so  wan." 

Chaucer. 

So  WiclifF  translates  the  last  clause  of  Matt, 
xviii.  6,  "  he  be  drenched  in  the  deepness  of 
the  sea  ;"  and  of  Mark  v.  13,  "  The  flock  was 
cast  down  in  the  sea,  a  two  thousand,  and 
they  were  drenched  in  the  sea." 

Hence  you  will  observe,  that  all  the  defini- 
tions which  these  lexicons  give  to  baptize, 
either  distinctly  express,  or  imply  immersion. 

And  this  accords  with  the  judgment  of  that 
distinguished  scholar  and  critic,  Dr.  G.  Camp- 
bell, principal  of  Marischal  college,  Aberdeen. 
"  The  word  baptize,  both  in  sacred  authors  and 
in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  im- 
merse ;  and  was  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the 
oldest  of  the  Latin  fathers,  tingere,  the  term 
used  for  dying  cloth,  which  teas  by  immer- 
sion. It  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this 
meaning.     (See  his  Notes  on  Matt.  iii.  11.) 

Nor  is  the  metaphorical  or  figurative  use  of 
the  word  baptize  less  strikingly  significant.  It 
has  its  entire  force  from  the  idea  of  a  full  and 
complete  immersion.  Strip  it  of  this  idea  and 
you  render  its  figurative  import  most  singu- 
larly tame  and  spiritless. 

What  other  idea  than  that  of  immersion 
mustCowper  have  conceived  when  he  wrote: 


TERM  BAPTIZE.  JQ3 

"Philosophy,  baptized 
In  the  pure  fountain  of  eternal  love, 
Has  eyes  indeed  ;  and,  viewing-  all  she  sees 
As  meant  to  indicate  a  God  to  man, 
Gives  him  his  praise,  and  forfeits  not  her  own." 

What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  defini- 
tions, "  to  plunge  in  afflictions  ;"  "  to  imbue 
largely;"  "to  confound  totally;"  "to  be 
immersed  in  or  overwhelmed  ivith  miseries  ;" 
"  to  be  oppressed  with  calamities?"  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  these  and  such  like  ex- 
pressions, if  not  an  idea  consonant  with  an 
immersion  ?  Does  a  mere  sprinkling  of 
cares,  of  sufferings,  of  business,  of  knowledge, 
or  of  calamities,  oppress,  confound,  largely 
imbue,  and  overwhelm  us  ? 

Did  our  blessed  Saviour  mean  that  a  mere 
sprinkling  of  sufferings  awaited  him  when  he 
said,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with, 
and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accom- 
plished !"  No,  my  brethren,  our  Saviour 
never  passed  the  scenes  of  the  garden  and 
the  cross  without  suffering  infinitely  more 
than  a  sprinkling  or  a  pouring!  His  holy 
soul  was  plunged,  as  into  a  sea  of  affliction, 
when  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross,  he  said, 
"  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto 
death."  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?' 

"The*metaphor,"  says  Dr.  Whitby,  "  of  bap- 
tism or  immersion  in  water,  or  being  put 
under  floods,  is  also  familiar  in  Scripture,  to 


I Q4  IMPORT,  &c. 

signify  a  person  overwhelmed  with  calamities; 
as  when  the  psalmist  complains  that,  '  all  thy 
waves  and  thy  billows  are  gone  over  me,9 
Ps.  xlii.  7.  '  Save  me,  0  God,  for  the  waters 
are  come  in  unto  ?ny  soul.9  '  /  am  come 
into  deep  waters  where  the  floods  overflow 
me.9  lxix.  1,  2.  See  also  Ps.  lxxxviii.  7.  Cant, 
viii.  7.  Jer.  xlvii.  2.  Ezek.  xxvi.  19.  Dan.  ix. 
26.  Jonah,  ii.  3.  And  in  this  sense  Christ 
saith  of  his  death,  i  I  have  a  baptism  to  be 
baptized  with9  Luke  xii.  50.  Of  this  cup  the 
apostle  James  drank  when  he  was  killed  by 
the  sword  of  Herod.  Acts.  xii.  2." — His  An- 
notations on  Matt.  xx.  22. 

"  We  here  behold  our  blessed  Redeemer  on 
the  day  of  his  sufferings,  praying  earnestly, 
and  repeating  his  supplications,  as  in  the  gar- 
den of  Gethsemane,  at  the  prospect  of  that 
sea  of  sorrows,  which  was  then  about  to  over- 
whelm his  agonizing  soul." — Geo.  Home,  D.  D. 
on  Ps.  lv.  1,  2. 

Dr.  Bloomfield  observes  on  the  same  text, 
that  "This  metaphor  of  immersion  in  water, 
as  expressive  of  being  overwhelmed  by  afflic- 
tion, is  frequent  both  in  scriptural  and  classical 
writers." 

And  this  accords  with  the  instructive  para- 
phrase of  Dr.  Doddridge. 

"Are  you  able  to  drink  of  the  bitter  cup  of 
which  I  am  now  about  to  drink  so  deep,  and 
to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism,  and  plunged 
into  that  sea  of  sufferings  with  which  I  am 


UNIFORMITY,  &c.  |Q5 

shortly  to  be  baptized,  and,  as  it  were,  over- 
whelmed for  a  time  ?" 

"  I  have  indeed  a  most  dreadful  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,  and  know  that  I  shall  shortly 
be  bathed,  as  it  were,  in  blood,  and  plunged 
in  the  most  overwhelming  distress! — Dod.  on 
Matt.  xx.  22:  Luke  xii.  50. 


Section  V. 

THE    REMARKABLE    UNIFORMITY    OBSERVED    IN    THE     USE 
OF    THE    WORD    BAPTIZE. 

Again-,  we  may  observe  that  the  uniform 
usus  loc/uendi,  i.  e.  the  common  usage  of  the 
word  baptize,  both  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  of  the  classics,  gives  us 
the  most  indubitable  evidence  that  the  word  in 
question  means  to  immerse;  and  never  means 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  "  To  every  word," 
says  the  great  Ernesti,  in  his  Elements  of  In- 
terpretation, "  To  every  word  there  ought  to 
be  assigned,  and  in  the  Scriptures  there  is 
unquestionably  assigned,  some  idea  or  notion 
of  a  thing,  which  we  call  the  meaning  or 
sense  of  the  word.''  "For  there  can  be  no 
certainty  at  all,  in  respect  to  the  interpretation 
of  any  passage,  unless  a  kind  of  necessity  com- 
pel us  to  affix  a  particular  sense  to  a  word; 
which  sense,  as  I  have  said  before,  must  be 
one;  and,  unless  there  are  special  reasons  for 
a   tropical   meaning,  it   must   be   the  literal 


IQQ  UNIFORMITY  OF 

sense."  "  The  sense  of  words  depends  on  the 
usus  loquendi.  This  must  be  the  case,  he- 
cause  the  sense  of  words  is  conventional 
(agreed  on)  and  regulated  wholly  by  usage. 
Usage  then  being  understood,  the  sense  of 
words  is  of  course  understood." 

Now  if  we  apply  these  acknowledged  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation  to  the  usus  loquendi 
of  the  word  in  question,  we  shall  see  that  the 
word  baptize,  as  used  by  all  Greek  writers,  is 
remarkably  uniform,  both  in  its  literal  and  fi- 
gurative application;  always  signifying  a  lite- 
ral immersion,  or  a  figurative  overwhelming. 
This  can  be  made  strikingly  to  appear,  as  the 
word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament.  To  make 
this  good,  let  me  remark  that  the  words  bap- 
tize and  baptism  are  used  more  than  one 
hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
no  one  instance  are  they  used  interchangeably 
with  words  whose  meaning  is  to  sprinkle, pour, 
or  wash.  Mark  further,  baptize  and  baptism 
are  the  words  invariably  used  to  express  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  No  other  word  is  ever 
employed  for  this  purpose,  with  the  exception 
of  sunt hap to  (owdaTtr^)  to  bury  with,  or  in  the 
likeness  of  another,  "  to  he  buried  as  another 
has  been  buried ;"  and  sump  hut  os  {ov^vro^) 
planted  together,  i.  e.,  planted  with,  or  in  the 
similitude  of  another.  See  Rom.  vi.  4,  5. 
And  these  words  most  happily  declare  the 
sense  of  baptize.  Buried,  as  a  body  is  buried 
in  the  earth ;  planted,  as  corn  is  planted  in 
the  ground. 


THE  WORD  BAPTIZE. 


107 


Now  you  will  observe  that  baptize  is  used 
interchangeably  with  ivords  which  mean  to 
bury,  plant  or  cover  up;  but  never  in  its  ori- 
ginal sense,  is  it  interchanged  for  words 
meaning  to  sprinkle,  or  pour. 

How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  speaking  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism  more 
than  a  hundred  times,  should  always  use  the 
same  word  baptize,  unless  it  be  where  the 
most  obvious  meaning  is  consonant  with  im- 
mersion, and  a  most  fit  comment  on  the  word 
baptize?  If,  as  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  af- 
firm, sprinkling,  pouring,  washing,  "  a  water 
ceremony!"*  or  any  application  of  water 
means  baptism,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  speaking  of  the  ordinance 
a  hundred  times,  by  different  persons,  and  of 
different  nations,  should  not  have,  on  some 
occasions,  used  the  proper  Greek  ivords,  which 
mean  to  wash,  pour,  and  sprinkle?  Rantizo 
(pavn^w)  means  properly  to  sprinkle,  why  did 
not  the  inspired  penmen  make  use  of  it,  with 
reference  to  this  divinely  appointed  rite,  if,  as 
our  Pedobaptist  brethren  tell  us,  sprinkling  is 
baptism?  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  baptize 
menus  sprinkle,  how  happens  it  that  whenever 
the  idea  of  sprinkling  was  to  be  expressed, 
the  sacred  writers  did  not,  on  some  occasion, 
make   use  of  the  word  baptize?     But  it  is 

*  Dr.  Morrison,  a  Pedobaptist  missionary  to  China,  in. 
his  version  of  the  Bible  into  the  language  of  that  nation, 
has  substituted  for  baptize,  the  phrase,  "  a  water  ceremony.*' 


108 


UNIFORMITY  OF 


worthy  of  remark  that  the  Holy  Ghost  never 
used  the  word  baptize  for  rantize,  sprinkle, 
nor  rantize  for  baptize.  These  words  are 
not  once  interchanged  in  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  fact  ought  to  admonish  the  incon- 
siderateness  of  those  who  dare  presume  to 
take  liberties  with  the  words  of  Scripture, 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  take,  and  has, 
in  no  instance,  warranted  them  to  take.  In- 
deed this  is  tampering  with  the  word  of  God, 
in  a  ivay  that  I  dare  not.  Jt  is  a  daring  pre- 
sumption "  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  Spirit 
by  that  of  the  party!!"  Who  may  venture 
to  exchange  one  word  for  another  in  the  Bible, 
where  God  has  not  made  nor  warranted  any 
such  exchange! 

These  remarks  will  apply  to  every  attempt 
to  make  the  word  baptize  mean  to  ponr,  or 
sprinkle,  or  any  thing  else  but  an  immersion 
and  overwhelming. 

This,  to  one  acquainted  with  the  genius  of 
the  Greek  language,  the  most  perfect  of  all 
languages  on  earth,  must  evidently  appear. 
So  full  and  complete  is  the  Greek  tongue  that 
it  comes  nearer  to  having  a  ivord  for  every 
idea,  than  any  other  language. 

To  exemplify  this  remark,  you  will  observe, 
that  our  English  word  wash  is  used  without 
expressing  what  is  washed,  whether  the  hands, 
body  or  clothes;  whereas  the  Greeks  have  a 
particular  word  for  each  of  these  washings. 

Ntrttw,  nipto,  means  to  wash  the  face,  hands, 
feet,  &c. 


THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.  ]Q 

Aw,  louo,  means  to  wash  the  body;  to  bathe; 
metaphorically,  to  purify. 

iEuwui,  pluno,  means  to  wash  clothes. 

In  like  manner  the  Greeks  have  Exxsu? 
eccheo,  to  pour  out,  forth,  or  upon;  pai/r^u, 
rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  besprinkle,  beslrew. 

I  ask  again,  and  well  do  my  Pedobaptist 
brethren  know  to  their  discomfiture,  if  any 
application  of  water,  ■washing,  sprinkling, 
pour,  &c,  means  baptism,  why  did  not  the 
sacred  writers  sometimes  use  the  Greek  words 
which  mean  to  ivash,  sprinkle,  and  pour  7  why 
did  they  invariably  and  with  studious  exactness, 
make  use  of  baptize,  when  speaking  of  this 
holy  rite?  Every  man  who  has  heard  me  thus 
far,  unless  he  be  determined  to  sustain  some 
party,  in  opposition  to  the  dictates  of  his  en- 
lightened understanding  and  in  violation  of  the 
conviction  of  his  conscience,  must  concede  the 
point,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  speaking  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  more  than  a  hundred 
times,  and  uniformly  using  the  word  baptize, 
the  proper  Greek  word  for  immerse,  and  never 
using  any  of  the  words  whose  meaning  is  to 
sprinkle,  pour,  or  wash,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  herein  signified  to  us  a  divine  institution, 
whose  mode  of  administration  is  immersion, 
and  immersion  only.  Moreover,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  herein  signified  to  us  an  insti- 
tution whose  mode  of  administration  is  im- 
mersion, and  whose  mode  is  inseparable  with 
the  institution  itself.  When  God  commands 
10 


110 


UNIFORMITY  OF 


us  to  be  baptized  he  commands  us  to  be  im- 
mersed. And  no  Christian  has  obeyed  this 
divine  command,  unless  he  has  been  immersed 
on  profession  of  his  individual  faith,  "in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost/'* 

*  Testimony  of  a  Native  Greek  on  the  Rite  of 
Baptism. — A  communication  has  been  received  from 
Delta,  accompanied  by  a  document  written  by  a  native 
Greek,  from  which  the  following-  is  an  extract.  The  ori- 
ginal document,  with  its  signature,  is  in  our  possession, 
and  is  open  to  the  inspection  of  any  friends  who  may  feel 
interested  in  seeing-  it. — Baptist  Advocate. 

"  ON    THE    WORD  j3a7tri£u>,    TO    IMMERSE." 

"I  was  requested  by  my  friend  to  describe  in  this 
album,  what  were  my  impressions  when  first  I  saw  the 
Protestants  of  this  country  pcu<rt£f(-v  instead  of '  fia.7tTi%sLv. 
But  before  1  proceed  any  farther  I  would  refer  to  the 
word  here  made  use  of,  as  a  scholar,  as  a  Greek,  and  as  a 
theologian.  In  the  first  place,  dear  sir,  the  supposition, 
that  /3artrt^w  ever  signifies  pavti^  is  a  very  trifling-  and 
absurd  supposition.  And  if  any  of  my  fellow  readers 
pretend  to  possess  any  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  never 
think  of  supposing-  that  ^an-ri^ca  can  ever  be  substituted 
for  pavrt^w,  or  pa^rt^co  for  j3a,7tTt£w. 

*  *  #  * 

"The  first  impressions  that  were  made  in  my  mind 
when  first  I  saw  the  baptism  performed  by  sprinkling  (/) 
was  something-  like  this:  Suppose  you  had  for  nine  years 
witnessed  decapitation  in  a  country  where  that  practice 
prevailed;  and  then  you  should  go  to  another  country 
where  you  should  happen  to  meet  with  a  person  who  was 
about  to  be  hung-,  and  you  should  ask,  what  are  they 
going- to  do  with  him?  and  suppose  you  tiny  would  tell 
you,  they  were  going  to  decapitate  him?  Would  you  not 
think  that  they  were  dreaming?" 


THE  WORD  BAPTIZE.  J  1  1 

The  uniform  sense  of  baptize  is  still  further 
apparent  from  the  uniform  sense  and  usage 
of  its  corresponding  Hebrew  words,  ^so 
tahbval,  the  meaning  of  which  is  to  dip,  or 
plunge,  Pedobaptists  themselves  being  judges. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  their  own  lexicogra- 
phers define  tahbval  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  im- 
merse. 

Again,  tahbval  is  found  eighteen  times  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  although  it  cor- 
responds not  only  with  baptizo,  but  also  with 
bapto,  which  is  more  general  in  its  applica- 
tion than  baptizo;  yet,  our  Pedobaptist  trans- 
lators did  not  scruple  to  translate  tahbval  to 
dip,  and  to  plunge,  and  that  too,  with  a  de- 
gree of  uniformity  which  shows  the  prevailing 
signification  of  the  word.  The  translators  of 
our  Bible  have  rendered  tahbval  to  dip  fifteen 
times  out  of  the  eighteen.  See  Gen.  xxxvii.  31 . 
Exo.  xii.  22.  Levit.  iv.  ti,  17;  ix  9;  xiv.  6,  10, 
51.  Num.  xix.  18.  Deut.  xxxiii.  24.  Josh, 
iii.  15.     Ruth  ii.  14.     2  Kings  v.  14;  viii.  15. 

These  read  as  follows,  "And  dipped  the 
coat  in  the  blood."  "And  ye  shall  take  a 
bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood  that 
is  in  the  bason/'  "  The  priest  shall  dip  his 
finger  in  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  of  the  blood 
seven  times  before  the  Lord."  "And  the 
priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is 
in  his  left  hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil 
with  his  finger  seven  times  before  the  Lord." 
"And  dip  them  in  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird, 
and  in   the  running  water."     "And   a  clean 


112  UNIFORMITY  OF 

person  shall  take  hyssop  and  dip  it  in  the 
water."  "  Let  him  dip  his  foot  in  oil."'  "And 
as  they  that  bare  the  ark  were  come  unto  Jor- 
dan, and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the 
ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water." 
"  And  dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar."  "Then 
went  he  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times 
in  Jordan."  "He  took  a  thick  cloth  and 
dipped  it  in  water." 

Once  they  translated  the  word  to  "plunged" 
"  Yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch." 
Job  ix.  31. 

And  twice  they  rendered  tahbval  to  wet. 
"  xAnd  they  shall  wet  thee  with  the  dew  of  hea- 
ven." Dan.  iv.  25;  v.  21.  With  respect  to 
the  two  last  instances,  it  should  be  remarked 
that  Daniel,  long  before,  when  yet  a  child,  had 
been  brought  a  captive  to  Babylon,  and  espe- 
cially selected  by  the  king's  orders  to  be  in- 
structed in  the  learning  and  the  tongue  of  the 
Chaldeans  for  the  space  of  three  years,  that 
at  the  end  thereof  he  might  be  received  at 
court,  and  stand  before  the  king.  See  Dan. 
i.  3—6. 

Thus  learned  in  the  Chaldee  tongue,  he  em- 
ployed, especially  at  court,  and  when  conver- 
sing with  the  king,  the  Chaldee  language. 
Hence  he  employs  tahbval  as  a  Chaldee  word, 
and  in  the  first  instance,  in  a  Chaldee  form, 
with  a  Chaldee  sense,  to  set  forth  the  future 
condition  of  the  king.  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
to  be  driven  out  from   men,  and   to  share  his 


THE  WORD  BAPTIZE. 


113 


portion  with  the  beasts  of  the  field.  They 
shall  make  thee  to  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  they 
shall  drench  thee  with  the  copious  dews  of 
heaven.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  we  have 
a  very  imperfect  idea  of  the  dews  of  Babylon 
and  vicinity,  if  we  liken  them  to  the  dews  of 
America ;  for  oriental  dews  are  more  like 
occidental  rains.  The  wetting  of  which  Dan- 
iel speaks  was  at  least  a  copious,  a  complete 
wetting.  Such  would  be  the  effect  of  eastern 
dews;  and  such  too  is  the  mildest  sense  pos- 
sible given  to  tahbval,  even  in  the  Chaldee 
tongue;  and  when  answering,  not  to  baptizo, 
but  to  bapto ;  while,  in  the  Hebrew,  it  denotes 
nothing  less  than  a  dipping.  In  no  one  in- 
stance in  the  Hebrew,  nor  yet  in  the  Chaldee, 
does  tahbval  mean  to  sprinkle,  or  pour.  The 
uniform  usage  of  this  word  can  be  made  yet 
further  to  appear,  by  considering  the  con- 
nexion in  which  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  employed  in  connexion  with  the 
words  which  signify  to  sprinkle  and  pour,  all 
these  meaning  not  the  same  thing,  but  separate 
and  distinct  acts;  marking  in  the  most  explicit 
manner  three  of  the  successive  duties  of  the 
priest  when  officiating  in  holy  things.  The 
priest  is  directed  to  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood; 
then  to  sprinkle  the  blood  before  the  Lord, 
and  then  to  pour  the  remainder  of  the  blood 
at  the  bottom  of  the  altar.  Consult  Lev.  iv. 
6,  7,  17,  18;  xiv.  10—18.  Now  the  priest 
would  have  subjected  himself  to  the  displea- 
10* 


I  24  UNIFORMITY,  fee. 

sure  of  God  had  he  changed  the  order,  or  mode 
of  discharging  his  official  duties.  He  was  not 
at  liberty,  nor  had  he  the  impiety  to  stand  and 
quibble  about  God's  commands  with  the  hope 
of  keeping  his  finger  out  of  the  blood.  Now- 
a-days,  some  have  got  to  be  so  very  deli- 
cate, that  had  those  Jewish  rites  been  con- 
tinued, we  might  be  told  not  to  dip  our  finger 
in  the  blood,  for  such  an  act  is  highly  indeco- 
rous ;  besides  the  original  word  tahbval  does 
not  mean  to  dip!! 

But  anciently  priests  were  very  conscien- 
tious men,  attending  to  all  their  duties  in  obe- 
dience to  the  commands  of  God  with  scrupu- 
lous exactness.  They  acted  upon  the  principle 
that  it  was  God's  to  command  and  theirs  to 
obey.  Nor  did  they  once  stop  to  inquire  if 
something  else  would  not  do  as  well !  They 
believed  in  God  and  obeyed  his  voice. 

For  the  honour  of  religion,  the  peace  of 
Zion,  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of 
souls,  I  devoutly  hope  the  time  is  not  far  dis- 
tant when  all  who  love  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
shall  yield  him  the  most  prompt  and  implicit 
obedience,  without  attempting  further  to  avoid 
the  plain  import  of  words  employed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

I  must  once  more  remark  that  the  Greek 
word  answering  to  tahbval,  as  used  by  Daniel, 
in  Babylon,  is  not  baptizo,  the  word  univer- 
sally used  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, but  bapto.     From  all  this  it  must  appear 


THE  CONCESSIONS  OF  PEDOBAPTISTS.  Ufr 

evident  that  the  word  baptize  is  remarkably 
uniform  in  its  application  and  sense.  Few 
words  employed  in  the  New  Testament  are 
equally  plain  and  uniform,  and  attended  with 
less  difficulty  than  the  one  in  question.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that  the  same  course  as  that 
adopted  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  if  admit- 
ted and  applied  to  other  words  in  the  Bible, 
would  destroy  the  entire  force  of  Scripture 
truth  ;  yea,  the  Bible  itself. 

And  I  can  but  believe  that  the  piety  and 
good  sense  of  many  of  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren shall  prevail  upon  them  to  come  forth 
in  the  spirit  of  our  common  Master,  and  for 
ever  put  an  end  to  this  protracted  discussion. 
Then  we  shall  be  one,  and  we  shall  have  "one 
Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,"  as  well  as 
one  Spirit  and  one  hope  of  our  calling. 


Section  VI. 

THE  CONCESSIONS  OF  MANY  OF  THE  MOST  LEARNED 
PEDOBAPTISTS,  RESPECTING  THE  TRUE  IMPORT  OF 
BAPTIZE. 

In  advance  of  what  has  been  said,  should 
there  be  any  yet  in  doubt  respecting  the  proper 
meaning  of  baptize,  I  will  cite  some  few  of  the 
numerous  noble  concessions  which  some  of 
our  most  distinguished  Pedobaptist  authors 
have  candidly  made.     These  men  ought  to  be 


116 


THE  CONCESSIONS 


heard  on  this  subject ;  for  their  fidelity,  as  to 
what  is  truth,  reproves  their  practice. 

Bretschneider,  who  is  acknowledged  to  be 
one  of  the  most  critical  writers  on  the  New 
Testament,  says,  "  an  entire  immersion  belongs 
to  the  nature  of  baptism.  This  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word. — The  apostolic  church  baptized 
only  by  immersion." 

Casaubon.  "  This  was  the  rite  of  baptiz- 
ing, that  persons  were  plunged  into  the  water, 
which  the  venj  word  baptize  sufficiently  de- 
clares." 

Bishop  Reynolds,  supposed  to  be  a  descend- 
ant of  John  Reynolds,  D.  D.,  one  of  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Bible,  in  common  use,  called 
King  James'  Bible,  gives  the  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize  thus  :  "  The  spirit  under  the  gos- 
pel is  compared  to  water;  and  that,  not  a 
little  measure  to  sprinkle  or  bedew,  but  to  bap- 
tize the  faithful  in ;  and  that  not  in  a  font  or 
vessel  which  grows  less  and  less,  but  in  a 
spring  or  living  river." — His  works,  pp.  226, 
407. 

Zepperus.  "  If  we  consider  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  term,  the  word  baptism  sig- 
nifies plunging  into  water,  or  the  very  act  of 
dipping  and  trashing.  It  appears,  therefore, 
from  the  very  signification  and  etymology  of 
the  term,  which  was  the  custom  of  ail  minister- 
ing baptism  in  the  beginning;  whereas  we 
now,  for  baptism,  rather  have  rhantism,  or 
sprinkling. 


OF  PEDOBABTISTS.  U7 

The  learned  Mr.  John  Selden,  who  was 
a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  se- 
lected and  convened  by  an  act  of  parliament, 
A.  D.  1643,  to  settle  the  government,  liturgy, 
and  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England,  ob- 
serves: "In  England,  of  late  years,  I  ever 
thought  the  parson  baptized  his  own  fingers, 
rather  than  the  child."  His  works,  vol.  6,  fol. 
edit.  col.  2008. 

Salmasius.  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  and 
was  administered  iri  ancient  times,  according 
to  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word.  Now 
it  is  only  rhantism,  or  sprinkling ;  not  immer- 
sion, or  dipping." 

Altingius.  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  when 
the  whole  body  is  immersed  ;  but  the  term 
baptism  is  never  used  with  respect  to  sprink- 
ling." 

Hahn.  "  According  to  apostolical  instruc- 
tion and  example,  baptism  was  performed  by 
immersing  the  whole  body." 

Professor  Lange.  "  Baptism  in  the  apos- 
tolic age  was  a  proper  baptism — the  immersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  water.  Plunging  under 
water  represents  death,  and  rising  out  of  it,  the 
resurrection  to  a  new  life." 

Witsius.  "It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
native  signification  of  the  word  baptize  is 
to  plunge,  to  dip."  Econ.  of  the  cov.  L.  4  c. 
16,  §  13. 

Chrysostom,  A.  D.  398.  "  To  be  baptized 
and  plunged,  and   then    to   emerge  or   rise 


I  lg  THE  CONCESSIONS 

again,  are  a  symbol  of  our  descent  into  the 
grave,  and  our  ascent  out  of  it;  and,  there- 
fore, Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial"  Homil. 
XL.  in  1  Corin. 

G.  J.  Vossius.  "  That  the  apostles  immersed 
whom  they  baptized  there  is  no  doubt.  And 
that  the  ancient  church  followed  their  exam- 
ple is  very  clearly  evinced  by  innumerable 
testimonies  of  the  fathers."  Disputat.  de  Bap. 
Disp.  I.  §  6. 

After  so  many  citations  from  some  of  the 
most  competent  judges  of  which  the  learned 
world  can  boast,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  how 
any  enlightened  Christian,  and  more  espe- 
cially how  any  one,  professing  to  be  a  teacher 
and  guide  to  others,  can  deny  that  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word  baptize  is  to  immerse,  to 
plunge,  to  dip ;  that  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Christian  church  immersion  for  baptism  was 
uniformly  practised  ;  and  that  sprinkling  for 
baptism  is  not  of  God,  but  of  men  ! ! 

So  truly  appalling  is  the  course  of  reason- 
ing adopted  by  some  Pedoba  prists,  and  so 
singularly  strange,  as  well  as  injurious  to  the 
cause  of  piety  cud  virtue,  the  arguments  ad- 
duced and  bold  assertions  made  in  support  of 
sprinkling  -And pouring,  instead  of  immersion 
for  baptism,  as  justly  to  awaken  apprehensions 
in  the  minds  of  some  of  their  most  able  bre- 
thren, respecting  the  fearful  consequences  of 
such  a  icant  of  candour  in  things  of  reli- 
gion. 


OF  PEDOBAPTISTS. 


119 


Professor  Campbell,  D.  D.  of  Aberdeen, 
speaking  of  the  want  of  candour  in  refusing 
to  acknowledge  what  is  truth,  says: 

"  I  have  heard  a  disputant  of  this  stamp,  in 
defiance  of  etymology  and  use,  maintain  that 
the  word  rendered  in  the  New  Testament 
baptize,  means  more  properly  to  sprinkle 
than  to  plnnge  ;  and,  in  defiance  of  all  an- 
tiquity, that  the  former  method  was  the  ear- 
liest, and,  for  many  centuries,  the  most  gene- 
ral practice  in  baptizing.  One,  who  argues 
in  this  manner  never  fails,  with  persons  of 
knowledge,  to  betray  the  cause  he  would  de- 
fend ;  and  though  with  respect  to  the  vul- 
gar, bold  assertions  generally  succeed  as 
well  as  arguments,  sometimes  better  ;  yet  a 
candid  mi) id  will  disdain  to  take  the  help  of 
a  falsehood,  even  in  support  of  the  truth." 
Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Pulpit 
Eloquence,  Lee.  X.  p.  181,  American  edition, 
edited  by  H.  J.  Ripley.  Mr.  Wall,  who,  more 
than  any  other  man,  explored  the  voluminous 
writings  of  antiquity  in  quest  of  some  evidence 
favouring  infant  baptism,  makes  the  following 
very  pertinent  remarks: 

"  This  immersion  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  an 
infinite  number  of  passages,  that  as  one  can- 
not but  PITY  the  weak  endeavours  of  such 
Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative 
of  it;  so  we  ought  to  disown  and  show  a 
dislike  of  the  profane  scoffs  which  some  peo- 
ple give  to  the  English  Baptists  merely  for  the 


120 


BAPTIZE  SUFFICIENTLY  EXPLAINED 


use  of  dipping;  when  it  was,  in  all  probability, 
the  way  by  which  our  blessed  Saviour  and 
for  certain,  was  the  most  usual  and  ordinary 
way  by  which  the  ancient  Christians  did  re 
ceive  their  baptism.  'Tis  a  great  want  of 
prudence  as  well  as  of  HONESTY  to  refuse 
to  grant  to  another  ivhat  is  certainly  true, 
and  may  be  proved  so.  It  creates  a  jealousy 
of  all  the  rest  that  one  says."  *  *  "  The 
custom  of  the  Christians  in  the  near  succeed- 
ing times  [to  the  apostles]  being  more  largely 
and  particularly  delivered  in  books,  is  known 
to  have  been  generally  or  ordinarily  a  total 
immersion."  His.  of  Inf.  Bap.  Pt.  II.  ch.  ix. 
§  2.  Def.  p.  131.  That  the  word  baptize 
means  to  dip  or  immerse;  and  that  the  an- 
cient practice  of  baptism  was  by  immersion, 
says  Prof.  Stuart,  of  Andover,  Mass.,  "all 
lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note  are 
agreed."  *  *  "  I cannot  see  how  it  is  pos- 
sible for  any  candid  man  who  examines  this 
subject  to  deny  it." 


Section  VII. 

BAPTIZE  SUFFICIENTLY  EXPLAINED  BY  ITS  IMMEDIATE 
CONNECTION. 

To  show  still  further,  if  it  be  necessary,  that 
the  Greek  word  baptize  means  only  immer- 


BY  ITS  IMMEDIATE  CONNECTION.  J21 

sion,  I  will  cite  some  few  of  the  many  pas- 
sages, which  sufficiently  explain  the  word 
and  declare  its  proper  sense. 

Words,  you  are  aware,  are  sometimes  used 
in  such  connections  as  not  to  be  explained  by 
the  context,  while  at  other  times,  the  connec- 
tion in  which  a  word  stands,  sufficiently  de- 
clares its  true  import. 

Now  there  are  many  passages  in  the  Greek 
language  where  the  word  baptize  is  used  in 
such  connection,  as  not  to  admit  of  a  single 
doubt,  respecting  its  true  and  obvious  sense. 

Hippocrates,  the  greatest  physician  of  all 
antiquity,  applies  the  word  baptize  to  the  sink- 
ing of  a  ship  by  being  overladen.  His  words 
are  "Shall  1  not  laugh  at  the  man  who  sinks 
(baptizes)  his  ship  by  overriding  it,  and  then 
complains  of  the  sea,  because  it  engulfed  his 
ship  with  its  cargo  ?"     His  works,  p.  532. 

No  one  can  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  mode  of 
baptizing  this  ship,  since  the  connection  plainly 
shows  that  it  was  an  immersion.  The  ship  was 
engulfed  or  sunk  into  the  sea.  And  yet  there 
are  some,  who,  in  defiance  of  all  examples 
and  testimony  of  every  kind,  venture  to  affirm 
that  the  word  baptize  never  means  an  immer- 
sion; that  its  proper  sense  is  sprinkling,  wash- 
ing or  pouring.  Such,  however,  betray  such 
a  want  of  candour,  or  such  ignorance,  or  both, 
as  to  forfeit  all  claims  upon  our  confidence. 

Take  another  example:    Diodorus  Siculus, 
speaking  of  the  destruction  of  many  land  ani- 
11 


122 


BAPTISM  SUFFICIENTLY  EXPLAINED 


mals  by  not  being  able  to  swim  when  the 
water  overflows,  says,  "  Many  of  the  Jand  ani- 
mals immersed  (baptized)  in  the  river  perish." 
Now,  can  any  one  doubt  as  to  what  kind  of 
a  death  these  animals  died?  Did  they  perish 
by  a  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  washing  merely? 
Were  they  not  overwhelmed  by  the  water  and 
drowned  in  the  sea  ?  Theirs  was  an  immersion ! 
Strabo,  the  renowned  geographer,  who  died 
only  eight  years  before  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified, speaking  of  the  lake  near  Agrigentum, 
a  town  on  the  south  shore,  of  Sicily,  says, 
"Things  which  otherwise  will  not  swim,  do 
not  sink  (baptize)  in  the  water  of  the  lake,  but 
float  like  wood." 

Strabo,  as  you  will  observe,  uses  baptize 
here  to  indicate  an  entire  immersion  in  water. 
He  makes  a  difference  between  floating  like 
wood,  and  being  baptized.  Wood,  you  know, 
will  float  partly  under  the  water,  while  a  part 
yet  remains  above  the  -surface.  Hence  he 
says,  these  things  are  not  baptized  in  the  water 
of  the  lake,  but  float  like  wood.  Who  need 
mistake  the  sense  here  given  to  baptize  ? 

Strabo  also  applies  the  word  to  Alexander's 
soldiers  marching  a  whole  day  through  the  tide. 
He  says  they  were  "  baptized  up  to  the  middle." 
Here  you  will  please  observe  that  baptize  is 
applied  to  soldiers  wading  in  the  water,  and 
expressly  limited  in  its  application  to  that  part 
of  the  body  which  was  under  water.  They  were 
baptized — immersed  up  to  the  middle. 


BY  ITS  IMMEDIATE  CONNECTION.      J£3 

But  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  when  plied 
with  such  examples,  where  the  sense  of  the 
word  is  distinctly  declared,  leaving  them  no 
ground  further  to  dispute,  change  their  posi- 
tion to  another  quarter.  And  tell  us  that  these 
examples  are  from  classic  authors,  who  wrote 
a  kind  of  Greek  different  from  that  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  therefore  not  apposite  to  our 
present  inquiry. 

Now  it  is  most  cheerfully  granted,  that  the 
above  citations,,  excepting  that  from  Diodorus 
Siculus,  are  out  of  authors,  who  wrote  pure 
Greek,  without  any  mixture  of  foreign  idioms. 

But  it  does  not  follow  thence,  that  they  have 
no  bearing  upon  the  subject  before  us.  They 
are  directly  in  point,  as  fixing  the  true  and 
uniform  import  of  the  word  baptize.  And  the 
number  of  Pedobaptisfs  are  comparatively 
few,  who  will  hazard  their  reputation,  both  as 
scholars  and  Christians,  by  the  bold  and 
sweeping  assertion,  that  classic  Greek  has  no- 
thing to  do  in  fixing  the  meaning,  and  declaring 
the  sense  of  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament! 

Such  an  assertion  may  answer  the  end  for 
which  it  is  intended  ;  and,  for  a  time,  bewilder 
the  unsuspecting  inquirer  after  truth.  But 
when  such  are  informed",  that  many  passages 
of  the  New  Testament  are  written  in  the  most 
pure  Greek,  and  that  the  greater  portion  of  the 
wards  are  employed  precisely  in  the  sense  as 
when  found  in  classic  authors,  they  will  with- 
draw their  confidence   from  such  guides   as 


]24  THE  STYLE  OF 

would  fain  make  them  believe  that  Scripture 
interpretation  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  usage 
of  words  as  found  in  the  best  Greek  authors. 

I  am  happy  to  say  that  the  number  of 
Pedobaptists  who  advocate  the  above  ground 
is  small.  I  very  much  regret,  however,  that 
there  should  be  any,  in  this  enlightened  day, 
holding  on  to  sentiments,  in  support  of  which, 
they  find  it  necessary  to  deny  the  very  close 
affinity  wftich  subsists  between  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  that  of  classic  au- 
thors. 

Such  a  scheme  to  support  sprinkling  for 
baptism,  is  of  very  recent  invention,  and  can 
be  but  of  short  duration.  The  more  pious  and 
judicious,  if  learned,  can  never  be  drawn  on 
to  ground  so  untenable  and  injurious  to  all 
philological  inquiries. 

These  will  love  to  concur  with  Baptists  in 
placing  a  high  value  upon  classic  Greek,  as 
one  of  the  necessary  aids  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


Section  VIII. 

THE  STYLE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

I  am  now  to  inquire  respecting  the  idiom  of 
the  New  Testament,  i.  e.  whether  the  origi- 
nal language,  in  which  the  New  Testament 
was  written,  is  pure  classic  Greek,  or  Greek 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


125 


interspersed  with  Hebrew  idioms.  .  To  every 
one  familiar  with  this  subject,  and  capable  of 
judging,  it  must  appear  evident  that  the  origi- 
nal language  of  the  New  Testament  is  neither 
throughout  pure  Greek  nor  pure  Hebrew,  but 
a  mixture  of  the  idioms  of  both  languages. 
The  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
were  acquainted  with  both  Hebrew  and 
Greek.  From  this  circumstance  their  writ- 
ings, as  also  their  oral  conversation,  would 
naturally  partake  of  the  peculiar  structure  of 
both  languages.  Hence  with  much  propriety 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  has  been 
called  Hebraic-Greek.*  For  such  in  reality 
is  the  natureof  the  originals  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, with  a  sparse  admixture  of  the  Chal- 
daic  tongue,  and  a  few  other  idioms.f 

*  Some  writers  denominate  it  "the  Greek  of  the  syna- 
gogue." This  denomination,' however,  is  improper.  For 
it  was  used  far  more  out  of  the  synagogues  than  in  them; 
and  might  with  more  propriety  be  termed  l(the  Greek 
out  of  the  synagogues."  But  neither  of  these  convey  a 
just  idea  of  the  peculiar  structure  of  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament.  Hebraic- Greek  designates  its  true  cha- 
racter. For  it  is  the  Greek  language  with  the  Hebrew 
idiom  here  and  there  intermixed. 

j-  The  very  learned  and  sensible  Mr.  Hayne,  remark- 
ing on  the  style  of  the  New  Testament,  says,  «« Any  one 
skilful  in  the  Greek  tongue,  may  easily  perceive  from 
what  notable  place  of  Plato,  Homer,  or  other  Greek 
writers,  many  phrases  in  the  New  testament  are  taken ; 
and  those,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  those  authors, 
are  fetched  from  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  from 
whence  all  the  roots  of  the  Greek  tongue  are  drawn. 
So  that  to  the  exact  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the 
11* 


126 


THE  STYLE  OF 


The  Greek  language,  more  copious  and 
rich  in  expression,  and  much  more  prevalent 
at  the  time  the  New  Testament  was  written, 
than  any  other,  was,  by  the  great  head  of  the 
church,  selected  as  the  vehicle  of  his  commu- 
nications of  mercy  to  the  children  of  men. 

"Perhaps,"  as  one  remarks,  "the  revela- 
tions of  the  gospel  could  not  have  been  given 
in  a  language  so  primitive,  meagre,  and  un- 
pliant  as  the  Hebrew;  while  the  copious  and 
flexible  idiom  of  the  Greek  had  been  in  a 
course  of  formation  and  polishing  by  the  first 
human  intellects  for  ages,  doubtless  for  this 
very  purpose  in  God's  providence.'''  See  Tur- 
ner's Sacred  Hist. 

Hence  you  will  perceive  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity there  is,  that  a  successful  interpreter 
of  the  New  Testament  should  be  well  versed 
in  both  the  pure  Greek  and  Hebrew  tongues, 
since,    while    the    sacred    penmen    wrote    in 

New  Testament  two  things  are  requisite,  conning  in  the 
Greek  authors?  and  in  the  Old  Testament,"  i.  e.  the  He- 
brew. Hayne's  View  of  Scriptures,  p.  322.  Edition  of 
1640. 

Mr.  Charles  Butler,  than  whom  none  is  a  better 
judge,  says,  speaking-  of  the  style  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  "Unavoidably  they  would  be  led  to  adopt  its 
idiom,  even  in  their  ordinary  discourse,  and  to  introduce 
it  into  their  writings.  The  consequence  was,  that,  al- 
ways bearing*  in  their  minds  the  idiom  of  their  mother 
tongue,  they  moulded  the  Greek  words  into  Hebraic 
phrases,  and  sometimes  even  used  words  which,  resembled 
certain  Hebrew  terms  in  their  sound,  in  an  Hebraic  sense.'" 
Horse  Biblicne,  p.  10. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  J  37 

Greek,  they  mingled,  frequently,  Hebrew  ex- 
pressions, and,  at  times,  other  idioms  with 
their  writings. 

To  this  agrees  the  learned  Mr.  Keil,  when 
treating  of  the  very  subject  before  us. 

"As  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament  is 
not  pure  classic  Greek,  but  the  Hebrew  idiom 
here  and  there  intermixed  with  classic  Grceh, 
and  as  vestiges  of  the  Chaldee,  Syriac,  Rab- 
binic and  Latin  languages  occur,  it  follows, 
of  course,  that  the  interpreter  should  not  only 
be  acquainted  with  pure  Greek,  but  also  with 
the  above  named  tongues."  See  his  Herme- 
neutica,  §  2. 

To  bring  this  subject  within  the  comprehen- 
sion of  every  child  that  hears  me,  let  me  fur- 
ther remark,  that,  those  of  you  who  are 
accustomed  to  receive  friends  from  other 
nations,  or  are  acquainted  with  foreigners 
whose  native  language  differs  from  our  own, 
know  how  often,  when  speaking  in  our  lan- 
guage, they  use  phrases  and  modes  of  speech 
which  are  not  common  with  ourselves. 

Take  a  Jew,  for  instance,  or,  if  you  please, 
an  Irishman,  after  having  become  acquainted 
with  our  language,  and  able  to  speak  it  with 
fluency,  yet  you  can  detect  them  using 
phrases  and  methods  of  speech  peculiar  to 
their  own  vernacular  tongue,  and  dissimilar 
to  ours.  The  language  and  writings  of  such 
we  would  call  Jewish-English,  or  Irish-Eng- 
lish. 


128 


THE  STYLE  OF 


Such  is  the  nature  of  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  whose  writers  were  Hebrews  by- 
birth,  and  more  or  less  acquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  tongue,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they 
understood  Greek,  then  the  prevailing  lan- 
guage, and  which  had  been  carried,  by  Gre- 
cian prowess,  especially  by  the  conquests  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  into  all  the  world. 

Now  this  Hebrew-Greek,  or  Greek  with 
Hebrew  and  foreign  idioms  mingled  with  it, 
is  that  in  which  the  New  Testament  was  ori- 
ginally written. 

And  to  pretend  that  we  must  make  no  use 
of  the  pure  Greek  in  ascertaining  the  sense  of 
the  language  0f  the  New  Testament,  is  all 
one,  as  to  pretend  that  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  pure  English  in  understanding  an 
Irishman's  conversation  in  English,  because 
he  mingles  with  it  his  Irish  brogue,  or  some 
expressions  more  nearly  allied  to  the  Irish 
than  to  the  English  language. 

Once  more,  it  should  be  remarked,  that  no 
part  of  the  New  Testament  is  rendered  unin- 
telligible because  of  its  peculiar  style.  So  far 
from  it,  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
are  more  transparent  and  of  clearer  import 
by  reason  of  the  very  style  and  language  in 
which  they  were  originally  written.  We  can 
see  both  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  in 
making  choice  of  the  Hebraic-Greek  as  the 
vehicle  of  his  communications  of  mercy  to 
the  children  of  men.     For  you  will  observe, 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  J 29 

in  the  first  place,  that  the  Greek,  the  most 
perfect  language  on  earth,  was  chosen,  by 
the  Great  Redeemer,  as  the  basis  of  his  com- 
munications; and,  secondly,  this  Greek  basis 
was  better  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  a  divine 
revelation  to  the  world  as  it  then  was,  and 
indeed  to  all  succeeding  generations  by  virtue 
of  its  peculiar  character,  as  derived  from  the 
Hebrew  tongue.  And  yet  further,  it  is  wor- 
thy of  remark,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  superin- 
tending the  writing  of  the  Scriptures,  pre- 
served them  against  the  least  ambiguity 
arising  from  the  admixture  of  other  idioms 
with  the  Greek.  Hence  when  words,  other  than 
Greek,  were  employed  in  the  sacred  text,  if 
they  tended  in  the  least  to  obscure  the  sense, 
the  Divine  Spirit  did  not  leave  them  till  they 
were  rendered  sufficiently  explicit.  From 
this  circumstance  we  have  some  valuable  in- 
terpretations of  words  and  phrases  in  the 
Bible.  For  instance,  "  Emmanuel,  which  be- 
ing interpreted  is,  God  ivith  us"  Matt,  i,  23. 
"  Jesus"  i.  e.  a  Saviour,  "  for  he  shall  save  his 
people  from  their  sins.  lb.  v.  21.  "  Sin,  a 
transgression  of  the  law."  "  Eli,  Eli,  lama 
sabachthani,  that  is  to  say,  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 
'•  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for, 
the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  Heb.  xi.  1. 
Justification,  "justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus."      Rom    iii.   24.       "  Corban,     a  gift." 


J30  STYLE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Mark  vii.  11.  "  Tabitha  cumi,  which  is,  be- 
ing interpreted,  damsel"  Mark  v.  41.  "  Si- 
loam,  which  is  bv  interpretation,  Sent"  John 
ix.  7.  "Jlbba,  father."  Rom.  viiL  15.  "Gol- 
gotha, that  is  to  say,  a  place  of  a  skull" 
Matt,  xxvii.  33,  &c. 

These  are  sufficient  to  show  how  exact  the 
Spirit  of  God  was  in  saving  the  sense  of 
Scripture  from  being  dark,  and  tending  to 
pervert  the  faith  of  those  to  whom  the  news 
of  salvation  comes.  If  a  word  was  unintelli- 
gible, it  requires  an  explanation. 

"  God  is  his  own  interpreter, 
And  he  has  made  it  plain." 

Yet  infidelity,  in  its  virulent  attacks  on 
Christianity,  files  an  objection  against  divine 
revelation,  because  some  words  are  used  out 
of  the  sense  of  classic  Greek.  And  then  to 
give  to  the  objection  all  the  power  possible 
over  the  minds  of  those  whom  they  would 
lead  astray,  they  quote  these  foreign  words 
and  phrases,  without  connecting  with  them 
the  interpretations  of  the  Spirit. 

From  all  this  it  must  appear  to  every  re- 
flecting mind,  that  the  late  attempt  to  avoid 
the  proper  sense  of  baptize,  and  to  make  it  of 
doubtful  import,  by  pretending  that  its  use  in 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  different 
from  what  it  is  in  the  classics,  is  without  the 
least  foundation  whatever.  This  must  be  still 
more  evident  from  the  following  section. 


BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IMMERSE.  |3l 


Section  IX. 

THE  IMPORT  OF  BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IMMERSE,  AS  IS  EVINCED 
BY  ITS  IMMEDIATE  CONTEXT,  AS  USED  BY  HEBRAIC- 
GREEK   AUTHORS. 

In  respect  to  the  word  baptize,  it  always 
and  invariably  is  used  in  the  sense  to  immerse, 
whether  in  classic,  or  sacred  Greek.  It  has 
undergone  no  change  in  its  signification  from 
what  it  had  in  pure  Greek  by  being  employed 
by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  New  Testament. 

That  its  only  proper  meaning  is  to  dip,  or 
immerse  has  been  sufficiently  shown  during  the 
progress  of  this  discourse;  and  that  too,  as 
used  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 

That  this  point  may  appear  evident  to  every 
candid  and  inquiring  mind,  suffice  it  to  say,  the 
earliest  version  of  the  New  Testament,  trans- 
lated about  the  close  of  the  first  century,  or,  if 
the  documentary  evidence  adduced  by  Euse- 
bius  be  accredited,  translated  by  the  apostle 
Thaddeus,  one  of  the  disciples  of  our  Lord, 
this  version  has  baptize  translated  by  a  word 
whose  meaning  is  to  immerse,  in  the  Syriac 
language.  This  single  testimony  is  sufficient 
to  settle  the  meaning  of  baptize,  as  used  in  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  and,  as  some  Pedobap- 
tists  say,  by  the  apostle  Thaddeus.  But  not 
only  this  version,  accounted  by  the  learned 
world  the  most  perfect  translation  ever  exe- 


J 32  BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IMMERSE. 

cuted,  but  also  all  the  earliest  versions  translate 
baptize  it)  the  same  way,  to  immerse. 

Add  to  this  the  fact,  that  the  Septuagint,  i.  e. 
the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
is  Hebrew-Greek,  precisely  of  the  kind  of  the 
New  Testament  Greek,  uses  baptize  just  as  the 
earliest  translators  did,  and  just  as  the  classic 
Greek  uses  it,  viz.  to  immerse,  or  dip.  "Then 
went  he  (Naaman)  down,  and  dipped  himself 
seven  times  in  Jordan."     2  Kings  v.  14. 

After  such  evidence  that  baptize  is  used  by 
the  inspired  penmen  precisely  as  it  is  employed 
by  classic  authors,  by  both  to  signify  an  im- 
mersion, you  will  see  the  reason  why  but  fev) 
have  ventured  so  far  as  to  deny  the  practica- 
bility of  translating  the  word,  and  contend  that 
it  must  be  transferred  into  the  English  and 
other  versions. 

Moreover,  that  baptize,  as  employed  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  is  to  be  understood  in 
its  usual  acceptation  in  other  writings,  at  and 
before  the  time  John  received  the  command 
from  heaven  to  immerse  believers,  is  witnessed 
to  by  Pedobaptists  themselves.* 

*  I  cannot  omit  transcribing"  here  the  very  judicious 
remark  of  Bishop  Middleton. 

"  It  is  better  to  understand  phrases  according  to  their  ob- 
vious import,  even  though  we  should  be  compelled  to 
leave  the  proof  of  their  htuess  to  more  fortunate  inquiry. 
Whenever  roe  begin  to  withhold  from  words  their  ordinary 
and  natural  signification,  we  must  not  complain  if  infidels 
charge  our  religion  with  mysticism,  or  its  expositors  with 
fraud." 


BAPTIZE  IS  TO   IMMERSE. 


133 


Dr.  Brownlee,  of  New  York,  very  judiciously 
and  correctly  puts  it  down  as  a  law  of  interpre- 
tation, "  That  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  invent 
words  but  used  them  as  he  found  them"  "  In 
accordance  with  this  principle  the  doctor  ac- 
knowledged that  to  understand  the  meaning  of 
baptize  we  must  refer  to  its  use  by  classic  au- 
thors in  the  Greek  language."  See  his  sermon 
on  baptism. 

But  to  show  the  entire  fallacy  of  the 
assertion,  that  baptize  is  used  by  the  New 
Testament  writers  out  of  its  ordinary  sense, 
as  well  as  to  show  what  meaning  the  Jews 
attached  to  this  word,  I  will  refer  you  to  its 
usage  by  Joseph  us.  No  uninspired  author  of 
all  antiquity  may  compare  with  Josephus  in 
point  of  substantial  testimony.  Respecting  the 
question  now  under  review,  his  use  of  the 
word  baptize  is  particularly  valuable.  He 
was  a  "  Hebrew  of  the.  Hebrews,"  "  of  the 
stock  of  Israel,"  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  of  the  chief 
of  the  sacerdotal  families,  and  of"  royal  blood." 
He  wrote  a  history  of  his  own  nation,  but  being 
acquainted  with  the  Greek  language,  which 
then  so  generally  prevailed,  he  wrote,  as  did 
the  pen  I  nun  of  the  New  Testament,  in  Greek, 
and  that  too,  while  some  of  the  apostles  were 
yet  living.  Josephus  frequently  employs  the 
word  baptize  in  his  writings,  and  he  invariably 
uses  it  in  the  sense,  to  immerse,  or  overwhelm  ; 
when  figuratively,  consonant  with  immersion. 
Speaking  of  the  storm  that  threatened  to  de- 
12 


134 


BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IAJMEKSE- 


stroy  the  ship  and  her  crew,  with  their  famous 
passenger,  Jonah,  Josephus  remarks,  "Upon 
the  rise  of  a  most  terrible  storm,  which  was 
so  great  that  the  ship  was  in  danger  of  sink- 
ing," "and  was  just  going  to  be  drowned." 
Bk.  x.  §  2.  The  word  used  here  for  the  ship 
being  likely  to  be  engulphed  is  baptize.  What 
kind  of  a  baptism  should  you  judge  it  to  be? 
Baptists  say,  that  the  master  of  the  ship 
was  apprehensive  of  being  swallowed  up  in 
the  deep.  So  great  was  his  and  the  crew's 
fear  of  being  drowned,  that  Josephus  tells  us, 
"  the  mariners,  the  master,  and  the  pilot  him- 
self, made  prayers  and  vows,  in  case  they 
escaped  the  sea/' — Ibid.  Yet,  some  of  our 
friends,  who  are  at  the  labouring  oar  night 
and  day  to  make  sprinkling  answer  for  immer- 
sion in  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  to  keep  their 
consciences  in  a  state  of  tolerable  rest,  tell  us 
the  word  baptize  never  means  to  plunge.  We 
bring  forward  examples  from  classic  authors 
which  are  too  plain  to  be  contradicted;  they 
then  affirm,  that  it  never  means  to  immerse  or 
dip  in  the  Hebrew-Greek;  we  then  point  thein 
to  2  Kings  v.  14;  to  the  usages  of  the  word, 
as  ever  the  same,  both  in  pure  Greek,  and  in 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament;  and  now 
they  are  furnished  with  another  example, 
where  the  word  in  question  is  employed  by 
a  Hebrew  who  wrote  in  Greek  to  express  the 
sinking  of  a  ship  at  sea. 
Indeed,  my  friends,  I  am  ready  to  inquire 


BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IMMERSE.  J35 

what  position  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  will 
next  take,  in  order  to  hold  on  to  their  sprink- 
ling affair?  Is  it  not  pitiful  in  the  extreme,  that 
such  efforts  should  be  made  to  avoid  following 
the  lowly,  yet  delightful  footsteps  of  Jesus? 

But  again,  Josephus,  speaking  of. the  wicked 
artifice  resorted  to  by  Herod  to  destroy  Aris- 
tobulus,  says,  "  The  boy  was  sent  to  Jericho  by 
night,  and  there,  by  command,  having  been 
plunged  in  a  pond  by  the  Galatians,  he  pe- 
rished." Jewish  Wars,  15k.  i.  p.  fii)b\  Here 
Josephus  uses  the  word  baptize,  and  in  what 
way  should  you  suppose  Aristobulus  lost  his 
life  ?  by  being  plunged  or  immersed  in  the 
water,  or  by  a  little  sprinkling?  Let  the  can- 
did decide,  and  then  lend  their  example  and 
influence  to  bring  forward  that  day  when 
Christians  shall  cease  to  trifle  with  a  word 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  employed  to  express  a 
divine  institution,  emblematical  of  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  and  of  all  his 
followers.  A  word  which  is  as  easy  of  inter- 
pretation and  as  uniform  in  its  meaning  as 
any  word  in  the  whole  Bible.  If  such  liberties 
may  be  taken  in  litis  case,  then  there  is  not  a 
word  in  the  New  Testament  whose  meaning 
may  not  be  controverted  and  rendered  doubtful. 

The  circumstance  last  mentioned,  Josephus 
records  in  another  book,  where  he  says,  "press- 
ing him  down  always,  as  he  was  swimming, 
and  plunging  or  baptizing  him  as  in  sport,  they 


136 


BAPTIZE  IS  TO  IMMERSE. 


did  not  give  over  until  theij  entirely  drowned 
him."     Antiq.  p.  458. 

I  will  select  but  one  other  example  of  the 
many  where  Josephus  uses  the  word  baptize 
and  always  in  the  sense  to  plunge  or  immerse. 
Making  mention  of  the  disaster  which  befell  a 
certain  city,  he  says,  "After  the  misfortune  of 
Cestius,  many  of  the  Jews  of  distinction  left 
the  city,  as  people  swim  away  from  a  sinking 
ship:'     Ibid.  p.  757. 

For  sinking  here  the  original  word  is  bap- 
tizing. Can  any  one  be  in  doubt  what  mode 
of  baptism  the  ship  was  on  the  point  of  receiv- 
ing? After  such  examples  as  these,  and  the 
number  might  be  increased  to  almost  any  ex- 
tent, after  such  examples,  where  the  word 
baptize  is  distinctly  explained  by  the  context, 
and  its  uniform  sense  plainly  showed  to  be  im- 
mersion;  what  shall  we  say,  what  must  we 
think  of  those,  who  professing  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  tongue,  venture  to  assert  that 
baptize  does  not  mean  to  dip  or  immerse  in 
the  Hebrew-Greek?  A  learned  Presbyterian 
has  answered  this  interrogation. 

"One  who  argues  in  this  manner  never 
fails,  with  persons  of  knowledge,  to  betray  the 
cause  he  would  defend  ;  and  though,  with  re- 
spect to  the  vulgar,  bold  assertions  generally 
succeed  as  well  as  argument,  and  sometimes 
better;  yet  a  candid  mind  w  ill  always  disdain 
to  take  the  help  of  falsehood,  even  in  the  sup- 
port of  truth." 


GENERAL  REMARKS.  J  37 


CHAPTER  III. 

INSTANCES  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  RECORDED  IN 
THE  EVANGELISTS. 


Section  I. 


GENERAL  REMARKS. 


After  this  protracted,  yet,  I  would  hope, 
satisfactory  examination,  proving  beyond  a 
successful  contradiction  that  baptize  can  be, 
and  has  been  repeatedly  translated  to  immerse, 
and  to  dip ;  and  that  too  by  distinguished  Pe- 
dobaptists,  as  well  as  Baptists  and  others ; 
that  its  usage  is  the  same  both  in  classic  and. 
Scripture  Greek;  and  having  adduced  testi- 
mony to  a  great  extent  to  substantiate  these 
and  other  facts,  it  yet  remains  that  some  at- 
tention be  bestowed  upon  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  relate  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Some  of  these  have  already  been 
brought  under  examination,  which  will  render 
it  unnecessary  to  repeat  them  here. 

Our  first  acquaintance  with  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism commences  with  the  ministry  of  John  the 
harbinger  of  our  Lord,  who  administered  it 
by  divine  appointment.  So  new  was  this  or- 
dinance, and  unlike  any  religious  ceremony 
with  which  the  world  had  hitherto  been  ac- 
12* 


j 38  GENERAL  REMARKS. 

quainted,  as  to  persuade  the  Jews  to  give  to 
John  the  appellation  Baptist. 

Nothing  could  have  induced  them  to  confer 
upon  John  this  appellation,  if  baptizing  had 
been  a  part  of  their  sacred  worship.  The 
Jews  were  too  jealous  of  their  peculiar  cere- 
monies to  permit  John,  or  any  other  person, 
to  bear  away  under  a  new  form  of  worship, 
the  name  of  one  of  their  religious  customs. 
They  regarded  John  as  novel  and  even  sift- 
gular  in  his  deportment;  and  especially  so  in 
his  immersing  those,  and  those  only  whose 
piety  and  faith  he  approved.  Hence  they 
distinguished  him  from  every  body  else  by  the 
name  Baptist — translated,  Immerser,  John  the 
Immerser:  or  as  Luther,  the  great  reformer, 
renders  it  in  his  German  Testament,  "Johan- 
nes der  Taufer — John  the  Dipper.* 

*  The  Dutch  version  has  it,  "In  those  days  came  Jo- 
hannes en  dooper," — John  the  dipper. 

The  German  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was 
executed  by  Luther  in  the  year  1522,  and  afterwards 
revised  and  corrected  by  himself,  assisted  by  the  immortal 
Melancthon. 

So  popular  with  the  Germans  was  Luther's  version  thus 
revised,  and  so  much  did  it  awaken  the  suspicions  of 
those  wedded  to  a  religion  established  by  law,  as  to  draw 
forth  from  Ferdinand  archduke  of  Austria,  a  very  severe 
edict,  prohibiting-  the  further  publication  of  Luther's 
Testament ;  and  forbidding  all  the  subjects  of  his  impe- 
rial majesty  to  have  any  copies  of  it,  or  of  Luther's  other 
books  in  their  possession.  Some  other  princes  followed 
his  example,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  Reformation.  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica,  under  Luther. 

This  bold  defender  of  the  inalienable  right  of  every 


PENITENT  JEWS  IMMERSED.  139 

Section  II. 


PENITENT  BELIEVING  JEWS  WERE  IMMERSED  BY  JOHN 
IN  THE  RIVER  JORDAN. 

John's  ministration  was  novel  to  the  Jews 
in  every  particular.  His  manner  of  living, 
his  dress,  his  piety,  his  announcement  of  Mes- 
siah's near  approach,  his  positive  command  to 
repent  and  believe  in  Jesus,  his  immersion  of 
believers,  his  rejection  of  unbelievers,  and  in- 
deed all  things  were  new  and  strange,  well 
calculated  to  command  attention,  especially 
because  of  the  piety,  probity,  and  truth  which 
so  sensibly  marked  his  every  act. 

Multitudes  were  excited  and  drawn  to- 
gether by  his  singularities  and  pointed  appeals 
to  conscience.  His  bold  defence  of  the  things 
he  taught,  his  fidelity  in  reproving  of  sin,  his 
solemn  warnings  to  flee  the  wrath  to  come, 

man  to  become  personally  acquainted  with  the  truths  of 
the  Bible,  faithfully  translated  into  his  own  vernacular 
tongue,  when  summoned  before  the  diet  of  Worms,  and 
asked  whether  he  recanted,  or  intended  to  continue  his 
course,  replied,  "Let  me  be  refuted  and  convinced  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  or  by  the  clearest  argu- 
ments; otherwise  1  cannot  and  will  not  recant,-  for  it  is 
neither  safe  nor  expedient  to  act  against  conscience.  Here 
I  take  my  stand.  I  can  do  no  otherwise,  so  help  me  God, 
Amen."  At  another  time  he  said  touching1  the  same 
point,  "  If  there  were  as  many  devils  in  Worms  as  there 
are  tiles  on  the  roofs  of  the  houses,  I  would  go  on."  This 
is  noble.     "  Buy  the  truth  and  sell  it  not." 


140 


PENITENT  JEWS  IMMERSED. 


his  persuasive  eloquence  to  faith  and  repent- 
ance, his  independent  and  uncompromising 
course,  all  commanded  respect  for  him. 
Some  few,  comparatively,  embraced  his  doc- 
trines, believed  in  a  Saviour  just  at  hand,  be- 
came disciples,  and  were  immersed  on  profes- 
sion of  their  faith. 

For  such  and  such  only  did  John  baptize 
as  evinced  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Such,  as  the  Scriptures  inform  us,  "  were 
immersed  of  John  in  Jordan."  Matt.  iii.  6. 
Mark  says,  "were  immersed  of  him  in  the 
river  Jordan."     i.  5. 

Now  in  these  records  of  the  introduction  of 
a  new  institution,  there  is,  as  we  might  na- 
turally expect,  the  most  particular  minuteness 
in  expressing  the  mode  of  administering  this 
sacred  rite.  Believers  immersed  of  John  in 
Jordan,  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  Nothing  can 
be  more  exact  and  explicit.  The  goodness 
and  mercy  of  God  appear  in  the  plainness 
with  which  he  speaks  to  his  children  in  giving 
to  them  a  new  and  sublime  ordinance  of  wor- 
ship. Hear  what  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
say  on  this  point. 

Mr.  Towerson.  "  For  what  need  would 
there  have  been  of  the  Baptist's  resorting  to 
great  confluxes  of  water, — were  it  not  that 
the  baptism — was  to  be  performed  by  an  im- 
mersion? A  very  little  water,  as  we  know  it 
doth   with   us,   sufficing   for    an   effusion   or 


PENITENT  JEWS  IMMERSED.  141 

sprinkling."  In  Booth's  Pedobap.  Exam.  Vol.  i. 
p.  209.  Ed.  2. 

Mr.  Erskihe.  "John's  baptism  was  termed 
the  baptism  of  repentance,  and  baptism  to  re- 
pentance; because  he  required  of  all,  whom 
he  admitted  to  baptism,  a  profession  of  repent- 
ance, and  exhorted  them  to  such  a  conduct  as 
would  demonstrate  their  repentance  genuine." 
In  Booth's  Pedobap.  Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  241. 
Ed.  2. 

Mr.  Scott.  "It  does  not  appear  that  any 
but  adults  were  baptized  by  John.... adult  Jews, 
professing  repentance  and  a  disposition  to  be- 
come the  Messiah's  subjects,  were  the  oxly 
persons  whom  John  admitted  to  baptism." 
Comment,  on  Matt.  iii.  5,  6. 

Mr.  Burkitt.  "John's  baptism  was  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  of  which  infants  were  in- 
capable.    Expos.  Notes  on  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15. 

Rev.  G.  Leo  Haydock,  a  learned  Roman- 
ist, in  his  Annotations  on  the  Bible,  says: 

"  The  word  baptism  signifies  a  washing,  par- 
ticularly when  it  is  done  by  immersion,  or  by 
dipping,  or  plunging  a  thing  underwater,  which 
was  formerly  the  ordinary  way  of  administering 
the  sacrament  of  baptism.  But  the  church, 
which  cannot  change  the  least  article  of  the 
Christian  faith,  is  not  so  tied  up  in  matters  of 
discipline  and  ceremonies.  Not  only  the 
Catholic  church,  but  also  the  pretended  re- 
formed churches,  have  altered  this  primitive 
custom  in  giving  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  and 


242  0UR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 

now  allow  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
water  on  the  person  baptized;  nay,  many  of 
their  ministers  do  it  now-a-days  by  filliping  a 
wet  finger  and  thumb  over  the  child's  head, 
or  by  shaking  a  wet  finger  or  two  over  the 
child,  which  it  is  hard  enough  to  call  a  bap- 
tizing in  any  sense."     Matt.  iii. 


Section  III. 

OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION  IN  JORDAN. 

But  a  little  in  advance  of  John's  immersing 
the  believing  Jews  in  Jordan,  we  have  a  very 
circumstantial  account  of  the  immersion  of 
our  Blessed  Saviour. 

Matthew  (iii.  13,  16,)  records  it  thus,  "  Then 
came  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John, 
to  be  baptized  of  him.  And  Jesus,  when  he 
was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the 
waters  Mark  says,  (i.  9,  10,)  "  That  Jesus 
came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  bap- 
tized of  John  in  Jordan.  And  straightway 
coming  up  out  of  the  water"  &c. 

Nothing  can  be  more  explicit,  and  at  the 
same  time  comprehensive.  There  is  not  a 
truth  in  our  Bible  of  plainer  import  and 
clearer  record,  than  the  immersion  of  Jesus 
in  Jordan.  The  Greek,  both  classical  and 
scriptural,  has  not  the  power  of  teaching  the 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 


143 


immersion  of  one  person  by  another,  if  the 
instances  here  cited  do  not  teach  it.  The 
Greek,  the  most  happy  in  its  expression  of 
any  language  in  the  world,  and  especially  so 
when  aided  by  the  idiom  of  Hebrew,  and 
chosen  of  God  before  all  other  tongues,  for 
the  express  purpose  of  making  known  his  sal- 
vation to  the  children  of  men  in  every  land, 
and  of  every  age,  the  Greek,  the  most  full  and 
copious,  cannot  teach  the  immersing  of  any 
person  in  water,  if  the  phrase  "  Jesus  was  bap- 
tized of  John  in  the  river  Jordan"  does  not 
teach  it. 

Bishop  Taylor  says,  "  The  custom  of  the 
ancient  churches  was  not  sprinkling,  but  im- 
mersion;  in  pursuance  of  the  sense  of  the 
word  in  the  commandment  and  the  example 
of  our  blessed  Saviour/'  In  Ped.  Exan.  Vol.  i. 
p.  199. 

No  man,  who  means  to  be  just  with  himself 
and  with  his  fellow  men,  and  honest  in  the 
sight  of  God,  need  mistake  the  true  import  of 
the  Scriptures  above  cited.* 

He  who  can  resist  the  force  of  these  scrip- 
tures, as  teaching  the  immersion  of  Jesus  in 

*  Well  has  Mr.  Bloomfield,  D.  D.  vicar  of  Bisbrooke, 
remarked  in  the  preface  to  his  Greek  Testament, 
••  Words  and  phrases  must  not  be  taken  in  some  recon- 
dite, (i.  e.  abstruse,  hidden,  or  obscure)  sense,  which 
men  of  learning-  and  ingenuity,  in  support  of  an  hypo- 
thesis, may  devise;  but  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  words, 
wherein  the  persons  addressed,  whether  by  preaching- 
or  writing,  would  be  likely  to  understand  them." 


J44  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 

Jordan,  must  be  under  the  controlling  power 
of  ignorance,  of  pride,  of  prejudice,  or  of  some 
other  influence  extraneous  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity.* 

You  will  not  judge  me  severe  in  this  remark, 
when  you  call  up  in  your  recollections  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  thus  far,  and  when  I 
direct  your  attention  to  the  most  singular  me- 
thod adopted  to  do  away  with  these  examples 
of  immersion  in  the  river  Jordan. 

You  are  first  told  that  the  word  baptize 
must  not  be  translated,  that  the  common  peo- 
ple must  depend  upon  their  ministers  for  its 
signification;  then  you  are  counselled  to  be- 
lieve that  the  word  in  question  means  any 
application  of  water,  any  thing  that  the  can- 
didate shall  prefer.  That  is,  that  this  divine 
institution  is  to  be  accommodated  to  the 
wishes,  prejudice  and  pride  of  those  to  whom 
it  is  administered.  But  yet,  when  a  convert 
gives  his  preference  to  immersion,  to  be  buried 
with  Christ  by  baptism,  he  is  plied  with  the 
potency  of  ridicule,  and  admonished  to  aban- 
don  such  an   idea ;  he  is  told  that  the  word 

*  Augustin  has  well  remarked,  that  "The  manner  of 
expression  in  which  the  Holy  Scripture  is  framed,  al- 
though it  is  to  he  penetrated  hut  by  few,  is  accessible  to 
all.  Those  plain  things  which  it  contains,  it  speaks  to 
the  heart  of  the  unlearned  and  learned,  like  a  familiar 
friend,  without  disguise.  That  mind  which  is  inimical 
to  this  doctrine,  is  either  erroneously  ignorant  that  it  is 
most  wholesome,  or  loathes  the  medicine  from  disease." 
Epis.  137,  ad  Volusianum. 


OUR  SAVIOURS  IMMERSION.  |4£ 

never  means  immersion,  and  that  immersion 
is  not  scriptural  baptism;  yet,  when  the  con- 
vert cannot  be  persuaded  to  submit  to  any 
thing  short  of  immersion  for  baptism,  these 
same  individuals  tell  him,  if  he  must  be  im- 
mersed, tkey  trill  administer  the  rite  to  him.  he 
need  not  go  to  the  Baptist  1  The  inquirer  is  fur- 
ther persuaded  to  believe  that  John  did  not 
baptize  the  Saviour  in  the  river  Jordan;  that 
the  word  "in*9  means  only  "to,"*  as  when  it 
is  said  "  he  went  up  into  a  mountain.11  Matt. 
v.  1.     By  this  time  the  unsuspecting  convert 

*  Mr.  Hervey,  when  contending  that  tv  signifies  in, 
adds,  "  I  can  prove  it  to  have  been  in  peaceable  posses- 
sion of*  this  signification  for  more  than  two  thousand 
years."  "Every  one  knows,"  he  observes  in  another 
place,  that  w ith  "is  not  the  native,  obvious,  and  literal 
meaning-;  rather  a  meaning  swayed,  influenced,  moulded 
by  the  preceding  or  following  word."  Letters  to  Mr. 
Wesley,  Let.  X.  and  II. 

"lam  sorry  to  observe,"  says  the  pious  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  "  I  am  sorry  to  observe  that  the  popish  trans- 
lators from  the  Vulgate  have  shown  greater  veneration 
for  the  style  of  that  version  than  the  generality  of  Pro- 
testant translators  have  shown  for  that  of  the  original. 
For  in  this  the  Latin  is  not  more  exphc.t  than  the  Greek. 
Yet  so  inconsistent  are  the  interpreters  last  mentioned, 
that  none  of  them  have  scrupled  to  render  f  v  rco  lophavr, 
in  Jordan,  though  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  if 
there  be  any  incongruity  in  the  expression  in  water,  this 
in  Jordan  must  be  equally  incongruous.  But  they  have 
seen  that  the  preposition  in  could  not  be  avoided  there, 
without  adopting  a  circumlocution,  and  saying  with  the 
water  of  Jordan,  which  would  have  made  their  deviation 
from  the  text  too  glaring."  See  his  Exposition  of  Matt, 
iii.  11.  Compare  this  11th  verse  with  verse  6. 
13 


146  0UR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 

is  bewildered  and  perplexed.  He  dare  not 
dream  of  any  thing  short  of  candour  in  his 
religious  guides,  and  yet  he  cannot  reconcile 
such  interpretations  with  the  plain  expressions 
of  Scripture. 

He,  perad venture,  meets  a  Baptist  and  in- 
quires how  the  Saviour  was  baptized]  the 
reply  is  "just  as  the  Bible  tells  you,  the  Holy 
Ghost  meant  just  ivhat  he  inspired  the  sacred 
penmen  to  write"  "  Jesus  was  baptized,  when 
translated,  immersed,  of  John  in  Jordan,  and 
Jesus,  when  he  was  immersed,  wTent  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water."  He  sees  and 
acknowledges  that  this  looks  natural  and  easy. 
It  is  just  such  plain  instruction  as  we  might 
expect  to  receive  from  the  Saviour  respecting 
his  own  peculiar  institution.  He  sees  further 
that  such  a  baptism  harmonises  most  beauti- 
fully and  pertinently  with  its  design,  as  an 
emblem  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  the 
Saviour's  body,  as  of  the  bodies  of  all  the 
saints  when  they  shall  come  forth  from  their 
graves  to  a  life  of  entire  holiness.*  But  then 
the  inquirer  is  told  not  to  put  too  much  confi- 
dence in  what  Baptists   say,  for  it  is  certain 


*  Doddridge's.  "And  after  Jesus  was  baptized,  as 
soon  as  he  ascended  out  of  the  water,  behold,  the  hea- 
vens were  opened  unto  him.     In  loco. 

Macknight.  Jesus  "submitted  to  be  baptized,  that 
is,  buried  under  the  water  by  John,  and  to  be  raised  out 
of  it  again,  as  an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and  resur- 
rection."    Apostol.  Epis.  Note  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 


117 


that  the  Saviour  was  not  baptized  in  the  river 
Jordan,  since  this  would  be  impossible,  for 
Jordan  is  a  mighty  river,  its  great  depth  and 
rapid  current  utterly  preclude  the  idea  of  im- 
mersing in  it !  The  young  inquirer  is  amazed 
at  this;  it  must  be  true;  it  comes  from  his  pa- 
rents, the  deacon,  the  elder,  and  perhaps  from 
the  minister  himself.  He  cannot  doubt  it,  and 
yet  he  cannot  make  it  harmonise  with  what  is 
said  here  about  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  in 
Jordan,  nor  with  what  is  said  in  Scripture 
respecting  this  river.  He  remembers  having 
read  of  Naaman  dipping  himself  seven  times  in 
Jordan;  of  the  fords  of  Jordan,  i.  e.  shallow 
parts  of  the  river,  where  a  person  can  wade 
through,  Jos.  iii.  28  ;  of  Burckhardt  saying, 
"  The  river,  where  we  passed  it,  was  about 
eighty  paces  broad,  and  about  three  feet  deep," 
Trav.  p.  345 ;  remembering  these  and  other 
like  facts,  he  is  at  a  loss  to  know  why  it  should 
not  be  thought  possible  to  immerse  in  this 
river  as  well  as  in  other  rivers.  These  items 
of  proof,  showing  that  the  Jordan  is  not  very 
dissimilar  to  all  other  rivers  in  the  world,  he 
feels  to  be  stubborn  facts.  And  yet  is  he 
most  solemnly  assured  that  to  immerse  in  Jor- 
dan is  a  thing  impossible. 

When  all  this,  and  much  more  to  the  same 
effect,  fails  to  dissuade  the  inquiring  convert 
who  ventures  to  think  for  himself,  from  a  faith- 
ful imitation  of  his  Saviour's  example,  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism;  his  timidity  or  want  of 


148  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IMMERSION. 

courage  becomes  the  subject  of  attack.  He  is 
told  to  be  immersed  is  endangering  health  and 
even  life  itself;  and  that  the  Lord  does  not  re- 
quire his  followers  to  make  such  hazard  for  his 
sake.* 


*  "My  sixth  argument,"  says  Richard  Baxter  in  his  zeal- 
ous opposition  of  the  Baptists*  "shall  be  against  the  usual 
manner  of  their  baptizing,  as  it  is  by  dipping  over  head 
in  a  river,  or  other  cold  water.  That  which  is  a  plain 
breach  of  the  sixth  commandment,  '  thou  shall  not  kill,'  is 
no  ordinance  of  God,  but  a  heinous  sin.  The  magistrate 
ought  to  restrain  it,  to  save  the  lives  of  his  subjects.  That 
this  is  flat  murder,  and  no  better,  being  ordinarily  and 
generally  used,  is  undeniable  to  any  understanding  man. 
And  I  know  not  what  trick  a  courteous  landlord  can  find 
out  to  get  his  tenants  to  die  apace,  that  he  may  have  new 
fines  and  h ©riots,  likelier  than  to  encourage  such  preachers, 
that  he  may  get  them  all  to  turn  Anabaptists.  In  a  word, 
it  is  good  for  nothing  but  to  dispatch  men  out  of  the 
world  that  are  burdensome,  and  to  ranken  church  yards. 
I  conclude,  if  murder  be  a  sin,  then  dipping,  ordinarily 
overhead  in  England  is  a  sin,  and  if  those  who  would 
make  it  men's  religion  to  murder  themselves,  and  urge  it 
upon  their  consciences  as  a  duty,  are  not  to  be  suffered  in 
a  commonwealth,  anymore  than  highway  murderers,-  then 
judge  how  these  Anabaptists,  that  teach  the  necessity  of 
such  dipping,  are  to  be  suffered."  Baxter's  Plain  Scrip- 
ture Proof,  pp.  134 — 136. 

Oh,  Richard  Baxter,  did  you  know  of  what  spirit  you 
were  when  you  penned  the  above  paragraph?  Ay,  now 
vou  know  that  the  spirit  you  indulged  against  Baptists 
while  on  earth  was  not  the  spirit  of  glory  and  of  Christ ! 
Yes,  even  before  you  were  called  away  from  earth,  your 
own  eyes  witnessed  the  sufferings  of  Baptists,  guilty  of 
no  other  crime  than  the  rejection  of  sprinkling  ana  the 
baptism  of  infants. 

You  called  for  the  magistrates  to  help,  and  with  your 
pen  you  helped  the   magistiates   when  you  wrote  your 


MODE  OF  REASONING. 


149 


Here  the  youthful  convert's  faith  in  Jesus, 
and  attachment  to  his  example  are  put  to  a 
new  test.  For  a  moment  he  pauses,  but  then 
recovering  himself  a  little,  and  though  but 
poorly  prepared  for  such  an  attack,  the  ex- 
ample of  his  Lord  forces  itself  again  upon  his 
attention;  while  he  recollects  also  the  five 
hundred  thousand  Baptists  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  all  of  whom  have  been 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  the  Saviour's 
death,  and  come  forth  in  the  likeness  of  his  re- 
surrection, and  yet,  not  one  of  them  all  sus- 
tains, in  consequence  of  this  act  of  christian 
fidelity,  the  least  possible  disadvantage.  He 
considers,  further,  that  it  is  but  a  poor  test  of 
one's  confidence  in  Him  who  hath  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth,  to  whom  he  has  com- 
mitted the  keeping  of  his  soul,  and  who  has 
promised  his  presence  to  his  faithful  followers 
in  every  act  of  obedience,  to  turn  aside  from 
the  plain  commands  of  the  King  in  Zion,  and 
out   of  a   wretched  pusillanimity,  a  want  of 

"Plain  Scripture  Proof//"  Imposing-  title  !  Ah,  brother 
Baxter,  your  "  Saints'  Everlasting  Rest "  is  prepared  for 
none  but  Pedobaptists  and  Catabaptists  ;  not  surely  for 
Baptists,  because  you  consider  Baptists  '*  murderers," 
"highway  murderers /"  Guilty  of  violating-  the  sixth 
command,  l(Thou  shalt  not  kill."  And  you  know  that 
*'no  murderer  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 

About  the  time  Mr.  Baxter  wrote  his  "  Plain  Scrip- 
ture Proof,"  the  great  and  good  John  Bunyan,  a  Baptist, 
of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  was  confined  in  pri- 
son for  the  space  of  twelve  years.  Many  a  Baptist  suf- 
fered even  unto  death  for  Christ's  sake  and  the  Gospel. 
13* 


•J50  MODE  OF  REASONING. 

christian  fortitude,  to  have  recourse  to  human 
■policy  in  acts  of  divine  worship.  He  recollects, 
moreover,  what  man  is  wont  to  hazard  for 
the  sake  of  some  temporal  advantage,  in  itself 
worthless  it  may  be,  and  for  the  sake  of  com- 
plying with  the  wishes  and  mandates  of  an 
earthly  prince.  He  calis  up  to  renewed  recol- 
lection the  instances  of  his  Lord  and  Master 
withdrawing  amid  the  damps  of  the  midnight 
hour  to  the  mountain's  brow,  and  there,  pros- 
trate upon  the  cold  earth,  agonizing  in  earnest 
prayer;  of  a  pious  patriarch,  in  obedience  to 
his  God,  and  in  defiance  of  human  policy, 
subjecting  himself  to  the  danger  of  choosing 
the  earth  for  his  bed,  stones  for  a  pillow,  and 
nought  but  the  canopy  of  the  heavens  for  his 
covering,  and  even  there,  after  the  repose  of 
the  night,  testifies  to  the  preserving  favour  of 
his  Lord,  and  consecrates  his  adamantine  pillow 
a  memorial  of  the  Divine  presence;  he  hears 
an  intrepid  apostle  exclaim,  while  death  in  its 
most  cruel  forms  is  depicted  before  him,  / 
count  not  my  life  dear  unto  myself,  so  that  I 
might  finish  my  course  with  joy;  he  remem- 
bers the  unwavering  firmness  in  keeping  the 
truth,  and  the  consequent  martyrdom  of  the 
early  disciples  of  his  divine  Redeemer;  recol- 
lecting these  and  like  instances  of  fearlessness 
in  the  service  of  the  Prince  of  peace,  the  as- 
saulted courage  of  the  youthful  convert  is  re- 
vived. He  feels  that  it  would  be  an  honour  to 
die  in  an  act  of  obedience  to  a  Saviour  whom 


B APTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH.  J51 

he  devoutly  loves,  who  has  died  for  him,  and 
for  whom  he  would  willingly  sustain  the  loss 
of  all  things.  The  emotions  of  his  pious  soul 
are  but  kindred  to  those  of  the  poet  and  the 
apostle,  when  they  said, 

"I  can  do  all  things,  and  can  bear 
All  sufferings,  if  my  Lord  be  there." 

"  For  God  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of 
fear,  but  of  power,  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind. 
For  the  which  cause  I  also  suffer  these  things; 
nevertheless,  I  am  not  ashamed ;  for  I  know 
whom  I  have  believed,  and  I  am  persuaded 
that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I  have  com- 
mitted unto  him  against  that  day."  2  Tim.  i. 
7,  12. 


Section  IV. 

A  WASHING,  AND  AN  IMMERSION  OF  THE  HANDS  CON- 
TRASTED ;  BY  WHICH  THE  IMPORT  OF  BAPTIZE  IS 
DECLARED. 

Mark  vii.  3,  4.  "  For  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  vl^wtai,  wash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the 
elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, except  thev  wash,  faTttiowtai,  dip,  they  eat 
not." 

From  what  has  been  said  respecting  the  de- 


152  BAPTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 

sign  of  King  James  I.,  by  whose  authority  the 
Bible  now  in  common  use  was  presented  to  the 
world  as  it  is,  with  those  words  then  called 
"ecclesiastical "  untranslated,  your  minds  are 
better  prepared  for  an  understanding  of  the 
passage  now  before  us. 

So  intent  were  the  translators  in  following 
out  the  king's  design,  by  concealing  the  origi- 
nal import  of  the  "  ecclesiastical  words,"  as  in 
some  instances,  grossly  to  pervert  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sacred  text.  I  have  before  furnished 
you  some  instances  where  the  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture has  been  thus  corrupted  and  turned  en- 
tirely away  from  its  original  import. 

Another  of  these  instances  we  have  before 
us.  And'here  I  wish  you  particularly  to  take 
notice  and  observe  the  violence  done  to  this 
scripture  by  not  translating  the  Greek  word 
$ait*io*wtat  in  the  fourth  verse,  nor  yet  transfer- 
ring it,  as  they  had  done  heretofore,  but  sub- 
stituting the  word  wash  in  its  stead.  That  you 
may  judge  for  yourselves  of  the  glaring  per- 
version of  this  scripture,  by  suppressing  the 
word  baptize  in  the  fourth  verse,  and  substitut- 
ing the  word  u-ash  in  its  place,  I  will  read  the 
third  and  fourth  verses  in  connection,  restoring 
the  original  words  in  the  place  of  which  our 
translators  put  the  word  wasL 

"  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  (vi^vtai  literally)  wash  their  hands  oft, 
eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders. 
And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  excep 


BAPTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


153 


they  ($a7(ti«oivtai  literally)  immerse  them,  i.  e., 
their  hands,  they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  the  (SaTi-tiaixovs)  dipping  of  cups  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 

Now,  you  will  please  observe  the  marked 
difference  between  these  two  verses,  when 
viewed  as  written  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit.  The  third  verse  teaches  us  one  of 
the  traditional  ceremonies  of  the  Jews.  The 
fourth  verse  discovers  to  us  two  more  of  their 
ceremonial  and  traditionary  observances. 

The  translators  of  our  English  Bible,  for  the 
sake  of  suppressing  the  true  import  of  the 
Greek  words  baptize  and  baptism,  in  the  fourth 
verse,  have  not  only  concealed  from  an  English 
reader  so  much  of  the  instructions  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  were  intended  to  make  us  acquainted 
with  one  of  the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  but  also, 
they  have  represented  the  Holy  Ghost  as  using 
the  most  stupid  tautology. 

For  what  purpose  is  the  first  fart  of  the 
fourth  verse  transmitted  to  us,  as  a  part  of  Di- 
vine revelation,  if  it  reveals  nothing  in  addi- 
tion to  what  is  expressed  in  the  third  verse? 
Wherefore  this  most  needless  repetition?  if, 
indeed,  it  be  a  repetition  ! 

Is  it  contended  that  the  repetition  is  for  the 
sake  of  emphasis,  rendering  the  instruction 
still  more  impressive?  Much  more,  then, 
ought  every  verse  in  the  New  Testament  to 
have  been  repeated ;  since  there  are  few  por- 


154 


BAPTfZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


tions  of  the  sacred  text  but  what  are  infinitely 
more  important  to  man,  than  to  be  informed  of 
a  Jewish  tradition.  And  yet,  the  Holy  Ghost 
thought  it  not  unimportant  that  we  should  be 
made  acquainted  with  the  traditions  of  the 
Jews,  and  be  admonished  not  to  practice  what 
God  has  not  commanded,  nor  left  us  by  way 
of  example. 

It  is  not  without  some  just  reason  that  infi- 
dels object  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
on  the  ground  of  needless  repetition,  when  they 
meet  with  the  instance  before  us ;  which,  in 
fact,  does  not  appertain  to  the  text  as  left  by 
the  Spirit,  but  to  translations,  executed  by  de- 
sign. The  king,  controlling  the  consciences 
of  the  translators  by  a  royal  edict,  forbade  them 
to  express  in  English  what  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
expressed  in  Greek  I ! ! 

Again,  it  is  natural  to  inquire  why  the  King's 
translators  did  not  uniformly  transfer  into  their 
version  the  Greek  word  baptize?  Why  is  the 
word  ivash  substituted  for  the  word  baptize  in 
the  text  under  consideration? 

Now,  let  it  be  remembered  that  they  were 
not  at  liberty  to  translate  this  word  in  the  New 
Testament,  even  had  they  been  so  disposed  ! 
And  in  this  instance,  to  transfer  the  word  bap- 
tize into  their  version  would  have  been  as  fatal 
to  their  design,  in  concealing  its  true  import, 
as  to  have  translated  it;  since  such  a  transfer 
would  have  contrasted  the  word  baptize  in  the 
fourth  verse  with  the  word  wash  in  the  third 


BAPTtZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


155 


And  in  this  case,  their  version  would  show,  as 
the  Greek  does,  that  baptize  means  more  than 
wash.  Such  a  meaning  they  wished,  if  possi- 
ble, to  avoid.  Hence  they  substituted  wash 
for  what  should  have  been  baptize,  or  immerse. 

In  a  further  examination  of  the  passage  un- 
der consideration,  I  may  remark  that,  the  third 
verse  mentions  a  custom  of  washing  the  hands 
among  the  Jews,  which  they  scrupulously  at- 
tended to  before  taking  their  meals.  This  tra- 
ditionary practice  was  in  nothing  dissimilar  to 
the  common  practice  of  all  enlightened  nations, 
of  washing  their  hands  before  sitting  down  to 
a  regular  repast,  with  the  exception,  the  Jews 
observed  it  as  a  religious  ceremony,  were  very 
uniform  in  its  observance,  and  repeated  the 
washing  several  times  on  each  occasion.  Ex- 
cept they  wash  their  hands  often,  they  eat  not. 

In  the  first  clause  of  the  fourth  verse,  we 
have  not  a  repetition  of  the  foregoing  instruc- 
tion, but  additional  information,  respecting  not 
the  above  general  custom,  but  an  occasional 
practice,  attended,  to  according  to  certain  cir- 
cumstances; and  performed,  not  by  washing 
the  hands  in  the  ordinary  way,  as  by  using 
one  hand  to  put  the  water  upon  the  other,  or 
by  having  water  poured  upon  them,  but  by 
plunging  the  hands,  and  a  part  of  the  arm, 
sometimes  up  to  the  elbow,  in  water. 

You  will  please  notice,  this  last  ceremony 
was  observed  only  occasionally,  when  circum- 
stances required  it ;  perhaps,  on  an  average, 


156 


BAPTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


not  oftener  than  two  or  three  times  a  week. 
Only  when  they  had  been  more  than  usually 
exposed  to  ceremonial  uncleanness,  as  at  a 
market  place,  or  in  a  promiscuous  crowd,  or 
in  any  place  where  there  was  danger  of  having 
come  in  contact  with  objects  of  pharisaical 
contamination. 

Now  when  a  Jew  judged  himself,  as  having 
contracted,  in  any  way,  this  ceremonial  de- 
filement, or  if  he  thought  he  might  have  un- 
consciously touched  any  unclean  person  or 
thing,  and  thereby  became  defiled,  he  did  not 
eat,  until  he  had  first  gone  through  a  ceremo- 
nial purification,  by  plunging  his  kands,  wrists, 
and  a  part  of  his  arms  into  water.  And  for 
this  purpose  every  family  among  the  Jews 
provided  themselves  with  water  pots,  as  we 
read  in  John  ii.  6.  "  And  there  were  set  there 
six  water  pots  of  stone,  after  the  manner  of 
the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or 
three  firkins  apiece."* 

In  this  view  of  the  Scripture,  now  under 
examination,  there  is  nothing  forced,  nor  far 
fetched.  Ail  is  natural  and  plain,  without 
needless  repetition,  and  without  the  least  am- 
biguity. *'  For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews, 
except  they  wash  their  hands  often,  eat  not, 
holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.     And  when 

*  Drs.  Lightfoot,  Doddridge,  and  others,  judge  that 
these  water  pots  contained  between  nine  and  thirteen 
gallons  each.    See  Dodd.  in  loco. 


BAPTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


157 


they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  dip  their 
hands,  they  eat  not." 

Moreover,  many  of  the  most  profound  theo- 
logians of  the  Pedobaptist  ranks  fully  sustain 
the  sentiment  which  I  have  here  advanced. 

The  learned  and  judicious  Spencer,  in  his 
work  on  the  Ritual  Laws  of  the  Hebrews, 
says: 

"  That  the  greater  part  of  the  Jews,  and 
especially  the  Pharisees,  attended  to  this  rite 
privately  at  home,  and  considered  it  a  very 
important  part  of  religion,  is  sufficiently  evi- 
dent from  Mark  vii.  3,  4.  Hence  it  was  that 
stone  vessels  for  water  were  provided  in  every 
house  of  the  Hebrews;  so  that  all,  when  about 
to  take  food,  might  perform  their  frequent 
washings,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the 
Pharisees.  These  vessels  were  very  suitable 
for  performing  these  daily  purifications  of  the 
Jews ;  for  it  was  customary  among  the  Jews, 
sometimes  to  wash  the  hands  by  water  poured 
upon  them  ;  at  other  times,  to  immerse  their  hands 
in  water  up  to  the  wrists.  The  former  mode 
of  washing  they  expressed  by  "tos,  wash,  the 
latter  by  iab,  dip" — Spen.  De  Leg.  Heb.  Rit. 
p.  1175. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  remarking  on  Mark  vii.  3, 4, 
says : 

"  The  Jews  used  the  washing  of  hands  and 
the  plunging  of  the  hands.  And  the  word 
vt^wvtcu,  wash,  in  our  evangelist  seems  to  an- 
swer to  the  former, — and  Qo.ntiaweo.%,  immerse, 
14 


158  BAPT1Z0  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 

to  the  latter." — k'  Those  that  remain  at  home, 
eat  not,  unless  they  wash  the  fist.  But  those 
that  come  from  the  market  eat  not,  unless  they 
plunge  their  fist  into  the  water,  being  ignorant 
and  uncertain  what  uncleanness  they  came 
near  unto  in  the  market."     Out  of  Ripley. 

Many  Pedobaptists  earnestly  contend  that 
the  Jews  did  actually  immerse  their  whole  per- 
son when  they  came  from  the  market  and 
other  places  of  exposure  to  defilement.  As 
Dr.  Hammond,  see  his  Annot.  on  Mark  vii.  4  ; 
and  Grotius  in  loco  ;  and  others. 

But  "  Kuinoel,  in  his  commentary,  asserts 
that  the  existence  of  such  a  custom  among  the 
Pharisees  is  not  sustained  by  sufficient  argu- 
ment."    Out  of  Ripley. 

There  is  not  sufficient  ground  for  believing 
that  the  Jews  immersed  their  whole  body  when 
returning  from  the  market;  but  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  in  a  candid  mind,  as  to  their  practice 
on  such  occasions,  of  dipping  their  hands  into 
water. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  well  remarks,  on  the  fourth 
verse,  after  having  given  somewhat  in  detail 
the  reasons  for  his  opinion,  that,  "The  phrase, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  meant  of  the  immersion, 
or  plunging  of  the  hands  only" 

The  whole  passage,  therefore,  furnishes  us 
with  one  of  the  best  of  proofs  that  baptize 
means  more  than  to  wash;  that  it  evidently 
signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  or  to  immerse. 
Hence,  Dr.  Campbell  says,  "  For  illustrating 


BAPTIZO  CONTRASTED  WITH  WASH. 


159 


this  passage,  let  it  be  observed,  1st,  that  the 
two  verbs  rendered  wash  in  the  English  trans- 
lation, are  different  in  the  original  The  first 
is  vi^wtat,  properly  translated  icask ;  the  second 
is  /3a7trtffwvrat,  which  limits  us  to  a  particular 
mode  ®f  washing  ;  for  /3a7tri§«  denotes  to  plunge, 
to  dip.  This  is  more  especially  the  import, 
when  the  words  are,  as  here,  opposed  to  each 
other.  By  this  interpretation,  the  words,  which, 
as  rendered  in  the  common  version,  are  un- 
meaning, appear  both  significant  and  em- 
phatic al." 

From  what  has  been  remarked  you  will 
have  a  more  distinct  understanding  of  another 
passage  recorded  by  Luke  xi.  38.  The  Sa- 
viour being  invited  to  dine  with  a  Pharisee, 
took  his  seat  at  table  without  first  ^jSart-ttaOrj) 
having  plunged  his  hands  into  water. 

Here  again  the  Holy  Ghost  employs  the 
word  baptized,  the  translators  substitute  the 
word  washed. 

Now  the  Saviour,  on  this  occasion,  had  been 
particularly  exposed  to  what  the  Pharisees  re- 
garded a  traditional  pollution;  having,  as  we 
learn  from  the  29th  verse,  been  surrounded  by 
a  mixed  multitude;  and  therefore  in  the  judg- 
ment of  a  Pharisee  he  ought  not  to  have  re- 
clined at  table,  without  having  first  plunged  his 
hands  into  water. 

In  support  of  this  interpretation,  let  me  cite 
a  single  passage  from  the  writings  of  one  in 
high  repute   among  Pedobaptists.     Dr.  Light- 


160 


WASH  IS  NOT  THE  SENSE  OF  BAFTIZO. 


foot  says,  "There  is  a  washing  of  the  hands,  and 
thereis  a  dipping  of  the  hands.  This  clause  we 
are  upon,  refers  to  this  latter.  The  Pharisee 
wonders,  that  Christ  had  not  washed  his  hands, 
nay,  that  he  had  not  dipped  them  all  over  in  the 
water,  when  he  teas  newly  come  from  the  people 
that  were  gathered  thick  together"  Here  you 
will  please  take  notice,  that,  because  King 
James'  translation  has  the  word  icash  substi- 
tuted for  the  word  baptize  in  the  above  ex- 
amined passages,  and  in  some  few  others,  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren,  in  their  interpretation  of 
the  word  baptize,  contend,  both  in  their  wri- 
tings, and  in  some  of  their  Lexicons,  that  the 
word  means  wash  ;  and  then,  as  proof  of  their 
opinion,  they  refer  to  King  James'  translation, 
and  to  their  own  Lexicons.  In  this  way,  they 
think  they  make  it  out  with  great  clearness, 
that  wash  is  one  of  the  definitions  to  the  Greek 
word  baptize. 

It  ought  not  to  be  disguised,  that,  the  proof 
adduced  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  in  sup- 
port of  their  sentiment,  that,  to  sprinkle,  wash, 
and  pour,  are  definitions  of  the  Greek  word  bap- 
tize, is  drawn  entirely  from  their  own  writings. 

Pedobaptists  continually  quote  Pedobaptists  ! 
One  makes  an  assertion,  another  quotes  that 
assertion  as  valid  proof.  The  Pedobaptist 
King  James,  and  his  Pedobaptist  translators 
substituted  icash  for  the  Greek  baptize,  or  for 
the  English  immerse,  and  now,  forsooth,  our 
Pedobaptist    brethren    attempt   to  prove  that 


WASH  IS  NOT  THE  SENSE  OF  BAPT1ZO. 


161 


baptize  means  to  wash,  since  wash  is  found  in 
the  King's  translation. 

In  such  a  circle  of  reasoning  any  body  of 
men  can  prove  any  thing,  however  foreign 
from  the  truth.  Happy  am  I  in  having  it  to 
say  that  I  have  not  felt  the  least  necessity  to 
appeal  to  the  sayings  of  ray  Baptist  brethren 
in  proof  of  my  sentiments.  The  word  of  God 
interpreted  by  the  same  laws  that  govern  the 
interpretation  of  other  doctrines  of  our  holy 
religion,  and  the  honest  concessions  of  Pedo- 
baptists  themselves,  have  been  the  divine  and 
human  testimonies  adduced  in  support  of 
what  I  attempt  to  advance.  Added  to  these 
I  have,  on  a  few  occasions,  called  in  some  dis- 
interested witnesses,  as  for  instance,  a  Jew,  a 
Quaker,  and  an  infidel,  who  with  an  unbiassed 
mind  testify  in  favour  of  what  I  teach. 

After  what  has  been  said  upon  Mark  vii.  3, 
4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  I  shall  do  little  more  than 
refer  my  hearers  to  those  texts  where  wash  in 
our  version  is  substituted  for  baptize  and  bap- 
tism, in  the  Greek  Scriptures. 

They  are  as  follows :  "  And  many  other 
things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  the  washing  (/Sa^^or?,  dipping,*)  of 
cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
"  Ye  hold  the  traditions  of  men,  as  the 
washing  (^arttt^w*,  dipping,)  of  pots  and  cups," 
Mark  vii.  4,  8.  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  washings,  {paMiofiots, 
dippings,)  and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on 
14* 


162    WASH  IS  NOT  THE  SENSE  OF  BAPTIZO. 

them  until  the  time  of  the  reformation."  As 
to  these  "  divers  dippings"  it  is  sufficient  to 
learn  what  they  were  from  a  Bible  law,  which 
will  equally  explain  the  dipping  of  cups,  pots, 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables,  mentioned  in  Mark 
vii.  4,  8.  The  law  runs  thus, "  And  upon  what- 
soever any  of  them,  when  they  are  dead,  doth 
fall,  it  shall  be  unclean  ;  whether  it  be  any  ves- 
sel of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  what- 
soever vessel  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is  done, 
it  must  be  put  into  water."  Lev.  xi.  32. 

Respecting  the  traditionary  dippings  men- 
tioned by  Mark  vii.  4,  8.  I  need  do  no  more 
than  cite  a  passage  from  the  writings  of  Mai- 
monides,  a  Jew  who  evinces  great  tenacity  for 
Jewish  traditions.  Speaking  of  the  dipping  of 
vessels,  &c,  he  says: 

"  In  a  laver  which  holds  forty  seahs  of  water 
they  dip  all  unclean  vessels.  A  bed  that  is 
wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is 
pure.  If  he  dips  the  bed  in  a  pool,  although 
the  feet  are  plunged  in  the  thick  clay  at  the 
bottom  of  the  pool,  it  is  clean.  What  shall  he 
do  with  a  pillow  or  bolster  of  skin  1  He  must 
dip  them  and  lift  them  up  by  the  fringes." — 
Quoted  by  Lightfoot. 


MUCH  WATER  IN  ENON.  153 

Section  V. 

the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  administered  by  im- 
mersion, as  is  circumstantially  evidenced  in 
John's  choosing  enon  for  that  purpose,  because 
there  was  much  water  there. 

"  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near 
to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there; 
and  they  came  and  were  baptized."  John  iii.  23. 

Every  thoughtful  and  unprejudiced  mind 
must  be  impressed  with  the  plain  import  of  this 
text,  with  a  bare  reading  of  it,  even  with  the 
Greek  word  baptize  in  it.  The  reason  why  John 
baptized  in  iEnon  is  here  given  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  "  because  there  was  much  water  there" 
The  phrase,  "  much  water"  (vSara  Ttovka,  hudata 
polla,)  is  frequently  used  by  the  sacred  pen- 
man, and  may,  with  no  less  propriety  be  ren- 
dered, "many waters"  As  used  by  the  same 
writer,  who  employs  it  in  the  text,  every  one 
may  satisfy  himself  by  turning  to  Rev.  i.  15 — 
xiv.  2 — xvii.  1,  15 — xix.  6.  The  whole  force 
of  these  passages  is  entirely  destroyed,  by 
making  the  phrase  "many  waters"  mean  no- 
thing more  than  streamlets,  as  is  contended  for 
by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren.  Just  in  the  same 
way,  is  the  strength  of  those  passages  destroy- 
ed which  represent  the  magnitude  of  the  Sa- 
viour's sufferings  by  an   overwhelming,*  when 

*  Mr.  James  Hervey  expresses  himself  on  this  subject, 
with  great  energy.     "He   longed,  (beneficent,  blessed 


Jg4  MUCH  WATER  IN  ENON. 

the  attempt  is  made  to  interpret  that  over- 
whelming or  baptism,  of  which  the  Saviour 
spake,  by  a  mere  sprinkling ! 

Again,  let  it  be  observed  that  the  phrase, 
"  many  waters"  is  used  to  designate  the  great 
river  Euphrates.  Jer.  li.  13,  compared  with 
verse  63. 

The  same  phrase  is  used  to  designate  the 
ocean,  as  we  learn  from  Psalm  lxxvii.  19 — xciii. 
4 — cvii.  23.  From  the  instances  here  cited, 
every  one  must  stand  reproved,  who  shall  at- 
tempt to  make  it  appear  that,  the  phrase, 
"  much  water"  more  generally  rendered, 
"  many  waters"  and  great  waters"  means  only 
rivulets,  or  little  rills.  And  yet,  should  the  un- 
suspecting be  so  far  imposed  upon,  as  to  be- 
lieve that  "  much  water,"  means  many  little 
streams,  it  is  sufficient  to  remind  them,  that, 
one  little  stream  often  affords  the  most  conve- 
nient places  for  the  immersion  of  believers. 
Much  more  then  must  it  in  all  sincerity  be 
granted  that,  a  confluence  of  many  such  streams 
should  furnish  water  in  great  plenty,  even  in  a 
superabundance  for  the  purpose  of  immersing 
those,  who,  yielding  a  glad  compliance  to  the 
command  of  Jesus, "  came  and  were  baptized." 

I  may  further  remark,  the  Holy  Ghost  in- 

BEING  !)  he  longed  for  the  fatal  hour.  He  severely  re- 
buked one  of  his  disciples  who  would  have  dissuaded  him 
from  going-  as  a  volunteer  to  the  cross.  He  was  even 
straitened,  under  a  kind  of  holy  uneasiness,  till  the  dread- 
ful work  was  accomplished ;  till  he  was  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  his  sufferings,  bathed  in  blood,  and  plunged  in 
death  !   Theron  and  Aspasio,  vol.  ii.  Let.  7. 


MUCH  WATER  IN  ENON.  jgrj 

forms  us  that  John  was  immersing  in  JEnon, 
because  there  mas  much  water  there.  Some  of 
our  Pedobaptist  brethren  inform  us  that  John 
was  sprinkling  at  iEnon,  because  there  were 
many  little  rivulets  there,  and  that  John  chose 
this  place  out  of  compassion  to  the  thirsty  mul- 
titude who  resorted  to  his  sprinkling,  as  also 
out  of  compassion  to  their  horses  and  mules, 
that  all  might  find  water  sufficient  to  allay  their 
thirst ! ! ! 

Unfortunately  for  such  expositors  of  the 
word  of  God,  others  of  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren, more  learned  and  ingenuous,  grant  all 
that  Baptists  ask,  and  fully  sustain  our  interpre- 
tation of  this  text. 

The  pious  Doddridge  remarks  as  follows, 
"  And  John  was  also  at  that  time  baptizing  at 
Mnon,  which  was  a  place  near  Salem,  a  town 
on  the  west  side  of  Jordan  ;  and  he  'particular- 
ly chose  that  place,  because  there  was  a  great 
quantity  of  water  there,  which  made  it  very  con- 
venient for  his  purpose.  Nothing  surely  can  be 
more  evident,  than  that  Ttovka  vho.ua,  many  iva- 
ters,  signifies  a  large  quantity  of  water,  it  being 
sometimes  used  for  the  Euphrates  Jer.  li.  13." 
In  loco.  Calvin  says,  "  From  these  words, 
John  iii.  23,  it  may  be  inferred  that  baptism 
was  administered,  by  John  and  Christ,  by 
plunging  the  whole  body  under  water."  In  Paed. 
Exam.  vol.  1,  p.  194.  Whitby  says,  "  on  i>&*?a 
rco%ika^v  txsc;  because  there  was  much  water 
there,  in  which  their  whole  bodies  might  be 
dipped."  Annot.  in  loco. 


IQQ  BAPTISMS  DURING  PENTECOST. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

INSTANCES  OF  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM  RECORDED  IN 
THE  ACTS  AND  EPISTLES  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


Section  I. 


THE    BAPTISMS    DURING   THE  GREAT  ANNUAL  FESTIVAL  OF 
THE  JEWS,  CALLED  THE  PENTECOST.       ACTS  II.  41. 

"Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized." 

The  ever  memorable  transactions  which 
had  fallen  in  swift  succession  immediately 
anterior  to  this  pentecostal  season,  were  all 
such  as  could  not  fail  to  impress  the  mind  of 
every  Jew  with  the  deepest  solemnity,  and 
call  together  on  this  occasion  a  vast  concourse 
of  people. 

But  fifty-three  days  earlier,  and  Jesus  was 
hanging  upon  the  cross;  the  astonished  sun 
was  in  sackcloth ;  the  rocks  were  rent  asun- 
der ;  and  the  smitten  sinner,  as  he  gazed  upon 
the  scene,  was  heard  to  exclaim,  "Jruly  this 
was  the  Son  of  God."  But  a  liltlc  subsequent, 
this  mighty  God,  despite  of  human  policy,  for- 
sakes the  marble  tomb  !  And  then  for  forty 
succeeding  days  he  showed  himself  to  many, 
at  several  times,  till  within  ten  days  of  the 


THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED.        2G7 

pentecost,  when  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud 
received  him  out  of  their  sight. 

The  awakened  anxiety  which  now7  so  gene- 
rally prevailed,  the  long  days  of  leisure,  just 
following  the  harvest,  and  the  solemnity  of  the 
feast  itself  filled  Jerusalem  with  guests  from 
every  part  of  the  land,  and  from  among  all 
nations.  A  little  before  the  Apostles  had  re- 
ceived the  promise  of  being  endowed  with 
power  from  on  high.  Acts  i.  8.  Com.  v.  5. 
Now  they  were  realizing  the  fulfilment  of  that 
promise.  Acts  ii.  1 — 4.  Peter  preached, 
aided  it  is  likely,  by  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
and  many  were  deeply  impressed,  and  in- 
quired what  they  should  do?  After  further 
instruction  had  been  imparted  to  these  anx- 
ious sinners,  in  which  they  were  directed  to 
believe  in  Jesus,  the  sacred  historian  says, 
"  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized;  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 
Acts  ii.  36—42. 

We  are  here  informed  that  about  three 
thousand  were  baptized,  i.  e.  immersed. 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  in  their  attempt 
to  make  the  Greek  word  baptize  mean  sprin- 
kle, have  entered  an  objection  against  the  true 
import  of  this  scripture,  on  the  ground  that 
three  thousand  could  not  have  been  immersed 
in  a  single  day. 

Dr.  Miller  states  his  objection  as  follows, 
"  When  Peter  rose  to  commence  his  sermon, 


168 


THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 


it  was  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Besides 
the  discourse  of  which  we  have  a  sketch  in 
the  chapter  containing  the  account,  we  are 
told  he  exhorted  and  testified  with  many  other 
words.  All  these  services,  together  with  re- 
ceiving the  confession  of  three  thousand  con- 
verts, must  unavoidably  have  consumed  seve- 
ral hours;  leaving  only  four  or  five  hours,  at 
the  utmost,  for  baptizing  the  whole  number. 
But  they  were  all  baptized  the  same  day." 
Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  89. 

Having  considered  at  some  length  the  early 
usage  of  the  word  baptize,  and  shown  to  a 
mind  free  of  prejudice,  that  its  only  appropri- 
ate meaning  is  to  immerse,  all  I  purpose  do- 
ing here  is  to  answer  this  objection. 

You  will  observe  that  no  mention  is  made 
of  the  place  where  these  converts  were  bap- 
tized. We  are  simply  told  that  "they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized"  When 
this  ordinance  was  first  administered,  and 
while  it  was  yet  a  new  thing  to  the  people, 
the  Holy  Ghost  condescended  to  mention 
with  great  exactness  the  places  where  it  was 
administered,  and  the  circumstances  attend- 
ing its  administration.  And  these  are  such  as 
cannot  fail  to  declare  the  true  import  of  the 
word  baptize,  even  though  the  word  itself 
were  shrouded  with  ambiguity.  We  are  ex- 
pressly told  that  John  baptized  in  the  river 
Jordan.  He  baptized  Jesus  in  Jordan.  And 
Jesus  when  he  was  baptized  came  up  out  of  the 


THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED.        jgg 

water.  And  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon, 
because  there  icas  muck  water  there.  No  sin- 
cere Christian  ought  to  ask  any  thing  further. 
All  is  plain.  But  after  the  institution  had 
been  given  in  language  explicit,  held  to  view 
in  the  minute  circumstances  attending  its  ad- 
ministration, and  the  places  where  it  was  per- 
formed particularly  noted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
thought  that  a  bare  mention  of  the  ordinance 
would  be  sufficient,  without  repeating,  in 
every  instance,  the  Jordan,  or  river,  or  Enon,  or 
brook,  or  much  water,  in  which  the  immersion 
was  administered. 

But  all  error  seeks  to  justify  itself  by  rais- 
ing captious  and  frivolous  objections,  and  by 
demanding  more  than  the  Divine  Spirit  has 
been  pleased  to  reveal.  "  We  read  nothing," 
says  Dr.  Miller,  "of  the  Apostles  taking  the 
converts  away  from  Solomon's  porch,  or  wher- 
ever else  they  were  assembled,  to  any  river 
or  stream  for  the  sake  of  baptizing  them." 

Because  the  inspired  historian  did  not  spe- 
cify the  place  where  the  immersion  was  ad- 
ministered, Dr.  Miller  draws  the  conclusion 
that  the  candidates  must  have  been  sprinkled. 
He  might,  with  the  same  kind  of  logical  rea- 
soning, have  extended  his  inquiry  a  little  fur- 
ther and  found  proof  to  justify  females  admi- 
nistering the  holy  rite,  by  saying,  "  we  read 
nothing  of  the  Apostles  baptizing  these  con- 
verts; therefore  they  must  have  either  bap- 
tized themselves,  or  some  of  the  Jerusalem 
15 


i  70        THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 

ladies    must    have    administered   the   rite    to 
them  !  !" 

In  the  above  reasoning  of  the  learned  Dr. 
there  is  the  tacit  acknowledgment  that  had  a 
river,  pool,  or  brook  been  mentioned,  it  would 
indicate  that  immersion  was  the  mode.    When 
the    Holy    Spirit   was   pleased    to    name    the 
places  to  which  John  repaired  for  the  purpose 
of  immersing,    the    Doctor  found    a  way  to 
evade  the  force  of  the  divine  record  ;  when 
the  place  is  not   named,  then   he   makes  the 
omission  an  argument  in  favour  of  sprinkling. 
I  am   reminded  of  the  Jews  who  found  fault 
with  John   for  his  manner  of  life;   and  then 
with  Christ,  because  his  manner  of  living  was 
unlike  that  of  John's.     Dr.  Miller  is  no   less 
fastidious.     For  when  the  Holy  Ghost  informs 
us  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  the  Doctor 
attempts  to  assign  the  reason  why  the  river 
was   resorted   to   on   such   occasions,   not   he 
supposes,  to   immerse,  but  because  John  was 
so  poor  that  he  had  not  a  basin  or  dish  of  any 
description    from  which  to  sprinkle  the  con- 
verts.    And  again,  when  it  is  said  John  went 
to  Enon  to  baptize  because  there  was  much 
water  there,  the  Doctor  says,  he  went  to  Enon 
to  obtain  water  for  the  purpose  of  quenching 
the  thirst  of  the  people  and  the  beasts  employed 
for    their    transportation.     And    then,    on    the 
'other  hand,  when  no  mention  is  made  of  the 
place  of  baptism,  the  Doctor  is  confident  that 
not  immersion  but  sprinkling  was  the  mode, 


THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED.  jiyj 

or  the  liver,  or  stream  where  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered would  have  been  noted. 

I  cannot  avoid  the  conviction  that  such 
twisting  and  turning,  asserting  and  inferring, 
as  are  every  where  perceivable  in  the  Doc- 
tor's Tract  on  Baptism,  will  gain  for  him  no 
reputation  among  the  more  pious  and  learned 
as  a  scholar,  a  Christian,  or  a  candid  rea- 
soner.  Besides,  such  a  course  is  doing  incal- 
culable injury  both  to  the  cause  of  piety  and 
truth.  Surely  such  a  course  is  abetting,  in  no 
small  degree,  the  cause  of  infidelity  and  scep- 
ticism. These  remarks  are  prompted  out  of 
no  unkind  feeling  towards  either  Dr.  Miller 
or  any  of  my  Pedobaptist  brethren;  but  out 
of  a  jealous  and  careful  concern  for  the  cause 
of  religion  and  the  souls  of  men,  which  are 
endangered  by  such  Christian  sophistry. 

Again.  Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  generally 
put  it  down  as  a  Scripture  truth,  that  the 
three  thousand  were  all  baptized  on  the  same 
day.  Now  this  is  wise  above  what  is  written. 
The  Bible  in  no  place  instructs  us  to  believe 
that  the  three  thousand  pentecostal  converts 
were  baptized  the  same  day.  The  Bible  says 
they  were  added  unto  them,  i.  e.  to  the  church, 
tJie  same  day.  Their  baptism  might  have 
been  administered  during  several  days  in  suc- 
cession ;  and  then,  on  some  set  day.  the  whole 
three  thousand  were  received  to  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  church  and  to  the  breaking  of 
bread. 


I J2  THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  judiciously  remarks  as  fol- 
lows, "It  is  said  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word  were  baptized;  and  then  as  speaking  of 
another  story,  he  (Luke)  saith,  there  were 
added  the  same  day  about  three  thousand 
souls."  See  his  Commentary  on  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles. 

But  I  am  not  particular  on  this  point.  I  am 
willing  the  objection  should  be  held  to  view  in 
all  the  strength  with  which  human,  ingenuity 
can  invest  it.  Let  the  supposition  then  read 
as  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  desire  it  should, 
though  manifestly  incorrect,  viz:  that  the 
three  thousand  "  were  all  baptized  that  same 
day,  and  during  the  latter  part  of  the  day" 
Now  whatever  objection  may  be  invented 
to  destroy  the  idea  of  the  immersion  of  the 
three  thousand  during  a  given  period,  will 
equally  destroy  the  idea  of  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing them,  during  the  same  period.  For  the 
time  required  for  an  immersion  is  but  a  trifle, 
if  any,  more  than  the  time  necessary  for  a 
pouring  or  spriiikling.  Unless  we  admit  the 
supposition  of  some  of  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren, that  as  the  crowd  stood  near  to  some 
water,  one  of  the  Apostles  took  a  bunch  of 
hyssop,  or  some  other  instrument,  and  flirted 
the  water  upon  the  multitude.* 

*  Mr.  Guyse  says,  "  It  seems,  therefore,  to  me  that  the 
people  stood  in  ranks  near  to,  or  just  within  the  edge  of 
the  river  ;  and  John,  passing1  along  before  them,  cast  water 
upon  their  heads  or  faces  with  his  hands,  or  some  proper 


I 

THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED.        |^g 

Although  such  a  supposition  is  childish,  yet 
it  may  be  remarked,  that  it  is  as  well  founded 
as  most  others  which  our  brethren  who  advo- 
cate sprinkling,  have  the  felicity  to  invent. 
True,  it  is  a  very  summary  way  to  administer 
a  divine  ordinance,  but  the  mode  they  say  is 
nonessential,  any  application  of  water  with 
them  is  valid  baptism  ! ! 

As  to  the  time  required  for  immersing  be- 
lievers, suffer  me  to  adduce  some  facts,  which 
cannot  fail  to  answer  the  specious  objection 
which  is  raised  against  the  immersion  of  the 
three  thousand  in  a  single  day.  The  Rev. 
George  Higgins,  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  second 
day  of  April,  1840,  baptized  ninety-five  willing 

instrument,  by  which  means,  he  might  easily  baptize 
many  thousands  in  a  day."  His  Paraphrase,  Vol.  i. 
p.  12. 

Dr.  Miller  thinks  to  have  improved  a  little  upon 
Mr.  Guyse's  theory.  He  says,  speaking-  of  John,  "As  a 
poor  man,  who  lived  in  the  wilderness,  whose  raiment 
was  of  the  meanest  kind,  and  whose  food  was  such  alone 
as  the  desert  afforded,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he 
possessed  appropriate  vessels  for  administering-  baptism 
to  multitudes  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  He,  therefore, 
seems  to  have  made  use  of  the  neighbouring  stream  of 
water  for  this  purpose,  descending  its  banks,  a?id  setting 
his  feet  on  its  margin,  so  as  to  admit  of  his  using  a  hand- 
ful, to  answer  the  symbolical  purpose  intended  by  the 
application  of  water  in  baptism."     Miller,  p.  93. 

Such  fanciful  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God,  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  to  the  world  that  sprinkling  is 
baptism  must,  it  might  seem,  awaken  suspicions  in  every 
Christian  bosom,  and  tend  to  open  their  eyes  to  behold  the 
ftarful  extreme  to  which  the  advocates  of  sprinkling  have 
gone. 

15* 


174        THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 

converts  in  the  short  space  of  one  hour  and  five 
minutes,\n  a  solemn  and  deliberate  manner,  Hav- 
ing no  special  regard  to  the  length  of  time  oc- 
cupied. No  Pedobaptist  minister  could  have 
sprinkled,  or  poured,  these  ninety-five  obedient 
converts,  in  a  shorter  space  of  time,  provided 
he  observed  the  same  degree  of  deliberation, 
and  did  not  make  use  of  his  scoop,  or  hyssop- 
brush.  I  will  only  select  one  other  instance  of 
this  kind,  which  goes  to  show  that  it  was  no 
difficult  task  for  the  Apostles,  then  at  Jerusa- 
lem, to  immerse  the  three  thousand  in  one 
day. 

"  In  the  Religious  Herald,  we  find  a  letter 
over  the  signature  of  I.  W.  Allen,  in  which  the 
writer  states,  that  being  called  upon  with  an- 
other minister  who  had  never  performed  the 
rite,  to  baptize  one  hundred  and  two  persons, 
there  were  Pedobaptists  present  to  mark  the 
time  occupied,  and  the  result  was,  they  were 
all  immersed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  space  of  sixteen  minutes. 
The  above  is  written  for  the  especial  benefit  of 
those  who  are  troubled,  or  kept  from  duty  by 
this  objection,  and  if  such  will  use  a  little  arith- 
metic, they  will  find  that  at  the  rate  above,  the 
twelve  Apostles  alone  might  have  administered 
the  rite  to  the  three  thousand  in  less  than  an 
hour!  We  confess  that  the  showing  up  of  such 
errors  is  a  small  business,  but  if  D.  D.'s  will 
make  themselves  so  small,  we  must  occasion- 
ally try  to  adapt  our  arguments  to  their  capa- 
cities."— Chr.  Watchman. 


THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 


175 


But  again,  the  objection  of  our  brethren, 
who  contend  for  sprinkling  as  one  of  the  de- 
finitions of  baptize,  generally  supposes  that  one 
of  the  Apostles  must  have  baptized  the  whole 
three  thousand.  Now  this,  you  will  perceive, 
is  wholly  gratuitous.  The  Bible  does  not  in- 
form us  how'  many  of  the  Apostles  aided  in 
the  administration.  The  Saviour  had  chosen 
twelve,  the  vacancy,  occasioned  by  the  dere- 
liction of  Judas,  had  been  filled,  as  we  learn 
from  Acts  i.  15 — 26;  and  at  another  time,  he 
sent  forth  seventy  more,  these  all,  with  others, 
were  now  convened  in  Jerusalem,  agreeable 
to  appointment  for  the  purpose,  among  other 
things,  to  choose  and  ordain  one  to  the  ministry, 
to  be  witness  with  them  of  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord.  "  The  number  of  names  together 
were  about  a  hundred  and  twenty.''1  Acts  i. 
22,  compared  with  v.  15.* 

*  Dr.  Lightfoot  on  this  fifteenth  verse,  observes, 
"This  summeth  the  men  that  are  spoken  of  in  the  verse 
preceding- ;  the  twelve  Apostles,  the  seventy  Disciples,  and 
about  thirty-eight  more,  all  of  Christ's  own  kindred, 
country,  or  converse.  These  one  hundred  and  twenty 
here  spoken  of,  are  not  to  be  reputed,  or  accounted  as 
the  whole  number  of  believers  at  Jerusalem  at  this  time; 
but  only  those  that  had  followed  Christ  continually,  v.  21, 
were  of  his  own  country,  stood  in  more  near  relation  to 
him,  as  being-  of  his  own  family  and  society,  and  appoint- 
ed by  him  for  the  ministry." 

On  Acts  i.  8,  he  says,  '*  The  whole  hundred  and 
twenty,  mentioned  in  v.  15,  of  this  chapter,  received  the 
gift  of  tongues,  and  not  the  eleven  only."  And  on  v.  13, 
"  They  went  up  into  an  upper  room."     He  says,  "This 


17(3  THREE  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED. 

The  frank  concession  of  Professor  Stuart, 
quoted  by  Professor  Jewett,  is  not  a  little  appo- 
site to  our  present  purpose.  He  observes,  "  It  is 
true,  we  do  not  know  that  baptism  was  perform- 
ed by  the  Apostles  only,  nor  that  all  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  before  the  going  down 
of  the  sun.  The  work  may  have  extended 
into  the  evening;  and  so,  many  being  engaged 
in  it,  and  more  time  being  given,  there  was  a 
possibility  that  the  work  should  be  performed, 
although  immersion  was  practised."  He  might 
have  added,  We  do  not  know  but  the  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  apostles  all  aided  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  immersion;  and  this  would 
leave  them  but  twenty-five  candidates  apiece, 
which  was  most  likely  the  case,  provided  the 
three  thousand  were  all  immersed  in  one  day. 

Let  it  be  observed  still  further,  that  history 
furnishes  us  with  ample  evidence,  respecting 
the  possibility  of  immersing  three  thousand  in 
one  day.  It  might  seem  that  the  providence 
of  God  had  watched  over  the  ordinance  of  im- 
mersion, and  furnished  answers  to  every  ob- 
jection that,  can  be  urged  against  it  by  the 
ingenuity  of  men. 

"  On  the  great  Sabbath  of  the  Easter  festival, 
the  16th  day  of  April,  A.  D.,  404,Chrysostom, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  clergy  of  his  own 

was  the  place  where  this  society  of  Jlpostles  and  Elders 
kept,  as  it  were,  their  college  and  consistory,  while  they 
staid  at  Jerusalem,  and  till  persecution  scattered  them." 
Light,  Com.  on  Acts,  in  loco. 


TEN  THOUSAND  BAPTIZED  IN  ONE  DAY.  jyiy 

church,  baptized,  by  immersion,  three  thou- 
sand persons.  Yes,  one  man,  assisted  only  by 
his  presbyters,  in  one  day,  and  in  one  place, 
immersed  three  thousand  persons;  and  that, 
too,  notwithstanding  the  Christians  were  twice 
attacked  by  furious  soldiers,  the  enemies  of 
Chrysostom."  "  So  in  496,  Remigius,  bishop 
of  Rheims,  baptized  in  the  same  day,  by  immer- 
sion, Clovis,  king  of  France,  and  three  thousand 
of  his  subjects." — Christian  Review,  Vol.  3, 
pp.  91,  92.     Out  of  Jewett. 

"About  the  year  590,"  says  Dr.  Pagitt, 
"  Gregory,  bishop  of  Rome,  sent  Austen,  the 
monk,  and  others,  into  Britain,  who  mightily 
prevailed  over  the  heathenish  Saxons,  in  Kent, 
so  that  there  were  in  one  day  about  ten  thou- 
sand men  baptized,  besides  women  and  children, 
in  a  river,  the  water  being  hallowed  by  Austen." 
— Christianography,  Part  2,  p.  9. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  detain  you  further, 
in  multiplying  instances  of  this  kind,  where 
many  have  been  immersed  in  one  day,  in  order 
to  induce  you  to  admit  what  is  stated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Your  piety,  and  your  reverence 
for  the  word  of  God,  if,  indeed,  you  believe  in 
a  divine  revelation,  ought  never  to  have  suffer- 
ed you  to  question  the  statement  of  the  sacred 
penman,  Luke,  that  three  thousand  had  been 
baptized,  and  also  that,  during  a  single  day, 
the  union  of  this  whole  number  with  the 
church  was  consummated. 

Indeed,  I  am  forcibly  reminded  of  a  little 


178  BAPTISM  OF  PAUL. 

circumstance,  with  which  I  have  somewhere 
met,  out  of  the  Rabbinical  writings  of  the  Jews, 
that  when  Moses,  by  Divine  command,  was 
about  to  write,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  he  cried 
out,  "  O  Lord  of  the  worlds,  why  wilt  thou 
give  men  occasion  to  err  about  thy  most  sim- 
ple unity?"  The  Lord  answered  him  and  said, 
"  Write  as  I  bid  thee;  and  if  any  man  love  to 
err,  let  him  err." 

Luke,  when  writing  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  of  his  time,  and  penning  an  ac- 
count of  the  revival  at  Jerusalem,  as  he  was 
about  to  record  the  baptism  of  three  thousand, 
without  mentioning  the  length  of  time,  and 
the  number  of  administrators,  might  have  ex- 
claimed as  did  Moses,  and  been  replied  to  as 
was  he. 


Section  II. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE   GREAT    APOSTLE    OF   THE  GENTILES. 

Acts  ix.  17;  xxn.  16;  ix.  18; 

"  And  Ananias  said,  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord, 
even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the 
way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou 
mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou? 
Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.     And 


BAPTISM  OF  PAUL.  j-yg 

immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  had 
been  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith, 
and  arose  and  was  baptized."  Here  again,  the 
place  where  baptism  was  administered,  is  not 
specified,  further  than  the  converted  Saul  was, 
at  the  lime  of  his  immersion,  in  Damascus. 
The  advocates  for  sprinkling  contend,  that 
Saul  could  not  have  been  immersed,  because 
no  mention  is  made  of  his  going  to  a  river, 
pool,  or  any  body  of  water. 

Had  King  James  suffered  the  word  baptize 
to  have  been  translated,  all  would  be  perfectly 
plain:  "He  arose,  and  was  immersed."  But, 
as  before  remarked,  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not 
design  so  much  to  teach  us  here  the  manner 
of  administering  this  ordinance,  though  this, 
indeed,  is  included  in  the  word,  as  to  declare 
to  us  the  order  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to 
show  us  one  of  the  first  duties  devolving  upon 
every  converted  soul,  viz.,  to  be  immersed 
in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  in  the  faith  of  his 
power  to  raise  us  up  at  the  last  day.  Hence 
Saul  is  informed  of  his  duty,  in  answer  to  his 
inquiry,  "Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to 
do?"  "Arise,  and  be  immersed." 

Notwithstanding  baptism,  here,  as  in  some 
other  places,  is  only  the  subject  of  allusion, 
just  as  it  is  common  with  all  Christians  to  men- 
tion baptism  without  specifying  the  place  of 
its  administration,  yet,  what  is  said  on  the  oc- 
casion, and  the  circumstances  attending  the 
baptism  of  Saul,  all  indicate  immersion. 


I  gQ  BAPTISM  OF  PAUL. 

He  is  called  upon  to  arise,  and  be  baptized? 
evidently  implying  that  he  could  not  be  bap- 
tized where  he  was  sitting.  Had  sprinkling, 
or  pouring,  been  the  mode,  there  could  have 
been  no  necessity  for  Saul  to  leave  the  place 
where  he  was. 

Before  he  was  called  upon  to  arise,  Ananias 
put  his  hands  on  him,  that  he  might  receive  his 
sight,  and  while  sitting,  too,  it  would  have  been 
most  convenient  to  have  sprinkled  him,  if  that 
had  been  the  mode.  But  the  very  expression 
indicates  that  Saul  was  to  depart  to  some 
other  place  in  order  to  be  baptized.  This  sense 
is  strengthened  not  a  little,  by  the  saying  of 
Luke,  who  very  particularly  observes  that 
"he  arose,  and  was  baptized."  And  what 
renders  it  still  more  evident  that  Saul  was  not 
baptized  in  the  house  where  Ananias  found 
him,  is  the  very  expressive  interrogation  ad- 
dressed to  him  immediately  on  receiving  his 
sight,  "  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou  V9  Un- 
questionably implying  that  in  order  to  his 
baptism,  he  must  depart  to  some  other  place; 
and  that  he  should  do  it  without  delay. 

I  may  further  remark,  Saul  was  now  at  Da- 
mascus, a  great  city,  the  capital  of  Syria.  Isa. 
vii.  8.  So  great  was  this  city,  according  to 
Josephus,  as  to  suffer  the  loss  of  twenty-eight 
thousand  of  her  citizens,  with  their  wives  and 
children.  Ten  thousand  of  these  were  mas- 
sacred in  one  hour.  Such  a  city  demands  a 
great  supply  of  water  to  meet  the  daily  and 


BAITISM  OF  THE  JAILER. 


181 


hourly  wants  of  her  thronging  multitudes. 
Had  nature  not  furnished  her  with  this  indis- 
pensable blessing,  art  would  have  been  employ- 
ed for  that  purpose.  But  nature's  gifts  are 
bountiful;  and  Damascus  shared  largely  in  the 
rich  distributions  of  this  necessary  element, 
without  which  we  should  all  cease  to  live. 

And  yet  an  attempt  is  made  to  support  sprink- 
ling by  imposing  upon  the  credulity  of  the  young 
and  unskilled  in  ancient  geography,  in  making 
them  believe  that  there  was  not  water  in  and 
about  Jerusalem  and  Damascus,  "  which  would 
admit  of  immersing  a  human  being." 


Section  III. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  JAILER  AND  HIS  HOUSEHOLD. 

acts  xvi.  30 — 34. 

"  And  brought  them  out,  and  said,  Sirs,  what 
must  I  do  to  be  saved?  And  they  said,  Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the 
night,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them, 
and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
house." 

Who  they  were  that  were  baptized  on  this 
1G 


1Q2  BAPTISM  OF  THE  JAILER. 

occasion,  and  their  qualifications  for  the  ordi- 
nance, will  be  considered  in  the  proper  place. 

It  is  said  the  jailer  must  have  been  sprin- 
kled, since  he  was  baptized  in  the  prison. 

But  mark:  Is  it  said  that  his  baptism  took 
place  in  the  prison  :  Let  us  consider  this 
subject  somewhat  in  detail: 

1.  The  jailer  sprang  in  where  Paul  and 
Silas  were,  and  fell  down  at  their  feet. 

2.  The  jailer  next  brought  them  out,  and, 
under  a  sense  of  his  sins,  inquired  what  he 
must  do  to  be  saved.  He  was  directed  to  the 
Lamb  of  God. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  the  jailer's  family  was 
called  together  to  hear  the  news  of  salvation, 
by  these  pious  prisoners.  They  spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that 
were  in  his  house.     V.  32. 

4.  The  jailer  took  them  and  washed  their 
lacerated  backs  ;  they  having  been  severely 
scourged.     Verses  33,  37. 

5.  After  the  Apostles'  wounds  had  been 
washed,  the  baptism  took  place.  And  was 
baptized,  he  and  all  his,  slraightway.     V.  33. 

6.  When  the  jailer  and  his  family  were 
baptized,  the  Apostles  were  invited  to  return 
to  the  house  and  take  some  refreshment. 
V.  34. 

7.  The  jailer  and  all  his  family  now  con- 
verted, and  having  followed  the  footsteps,  as 
well  as  the  command  of  the  Saviour  in  being 
baptized,  rejoiced,  believing  in  God.     V.  34. 


BAPTISM   OF  THE  JAILER.  jgg 

8.  After  the  Apostles  had  taken  meat,  they 
were  returned  back  again  into  the  prison. 
This  is  evident  from  verses  35 — 37. 

9.  The  magistrates  came  in  the  morning 
and  brought  the  Apostles  out  of  the  prison,  as 
the  jailer  had  done  the  night  before.  Vrerses 
38—40. 

All  these  circumstances  taken  together  show 
most  convincingly,  that  the  Apostles  were  not 
baptized  in  the  jailer's  house,  nor  in  the  inner 
prison;  but  either  in  the  outer  court  of  the 
prison,  in  the  prison  yard,  or  in  some  stream 
of  water  near  at  hand.  The  river  Strymon 
was  adjacent.  Every  scholar  is  acquainted 
with  the  fact,  that  eastern  public  buildings 
were  formerly,  and  are,  in  many  places  even 
to  this-  day,  provided  with  large  reser- 
voirs of  water.  Sometimes  the  dungeon  of 
an  eastern  prison  was  nothing  more  than  one 
of  these  reservoirs  exhausted  of  its  water. 
Into  such  a  prison  was  Jeremiah  cast,  "and 
in  the  dungeon  there  was  no  water  but  mire; 
so  Jeremiah  sunk  in  the  mire."  Such  reser- 
voirs were  of  greater  or  less  dimensions. 
The  one  into  which  the  prophet  was  put  was 
of  the  largest  kind.  He  was  let  down  into  it, 
and  raised  up  out  of  it  by  cords.  Jer.  xxxviii. 
6,  13. 

You  will  observe  further,  that  this  reservoir 
or  dungeon,  as  it  is  called,  "was  in  the  court 
of  the  prison."     V.  6. 

Moreover,   it   was   formerly   an    universal 


184 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  JAILER. 


custom  in  eastern  countries  for  men  in  public 
service  to  be  provided  with  the  conveniences 
for  bathing  their  whole  person. 

"  Grotius,  (the  most  learned  and  best  in- 
formed man  in  Europe  in  his  time)  held  it  as 
highly  probable,  from  the  practice  of  the 
country,  that  the  jail  of  Philippi  was  provided 
with  baths,  which  would  admit  of  the  ordi- 
nance in  this  form  without  delay." 

The  jailer's  family  hath  would  now  be  at 
the  disposal  ot'  the  Apostles.  Most  gladly 
would  he  now  go  forth  in  company  with  his 
entire  family  to  yield  ouedience  to  his  Sa- 
viour's command,  and  to  be  laid  beneath 
those  pure  waters  where  he  had  often  laid 
himself  down  without  the  thought  of  his  final 
burial  and  resurrection,  and  with  as  little  re- 
gard to  a  preparation  for  those  solemn  events. 

I  cannot  avoid  the  conviction,  therefore, 
from  the  circumstances  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  the  jailer's  baptism,  even  were  the 
word  baptize  of  dubious  import,  though  it  is 
not,  that  he  and  his  family  were  immersed. 

That  he  was  immersed  is  certain  from  the 
import  of  the  word  baptize;  which,  I  have 
before  sufficiently  proved,  means  only  to  im- 
merse. 

Hence;  Hospinianus  says,  "Christ  com- 
manded us  to  he  baptized,  by  which  word  it  is 
certain  immersion  is  signified."  Hist.  Sacra. 
L.  II.  c.  i.  p.  30. 

Buddeus  says,   "The  words   baptizein  and 


CERTAIN  DISCIPLES  NOT  BAPTIZED.  195 

baptimos  are  not  to  be  interpreted  of  asper- 
sions ;  but  always  of  immersion"  Theol. 
Dogmat.  L.  V.  c.  i.  §  5. 


Section  IV. 

CERTAIN  DISCIPLES  AT  EPHESUS,  WHEN  MORE  FULLY  IN- 
STRUCTED IN  THE  FAITH  OF  THE  GOSPEL  AND  RESPECT- 
ING THE  NATURE  OF  THEIR  BAPTISM,  WERE  ENDOWED 
WITH  THE  GIFT  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

Acts  xix.  1.  Paul  having  passed  through 
the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus ;  and  find- 
ing certain  disciples,  2.  He  said  unto  them, 
Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye 
believed  ?  And  ihey  said  unto  him,  We  have 
not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any 
Holy  Ghost.  3.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Unto 
what  then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said, 
Unto  John's  baptism.  4.  Then  said  Paul, 
John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people,  That  they 
should  believe  on  him  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  5.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  6.  And  when  Paul 
had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost 
catne  on  them  ;  and  they  spake  with  tongues, 
and  prophesied.  7.  And  all  the  men  were 
about  twelve. 
16* 


18G 


CERTAIN  DISCIPLES  NOT  BAPTIZED. 


This  is  a  much  controverted  passage,  and 
therefore  should  never  be  resorted  to  as  proof 
against  the  validity  of  that  holy  rite  which 
John  administered  to  our  blessed  Redeemer, 
in  the  river  Jordan. 

But  the  prevailing  desire  on  the  part  of  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren  to  avoid  the  plain  in- 
stances of  John's  baptism,  when  there  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt  that  he  administered  the 
holy  rite  by  immersion,  has  led  them  to  deny 
that  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism; 
and,  consequently,  to  deny  that  our  Saviour 
was  thus  baptized.  And  then  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  they  are  in  the  right  in  the  position 
which  they  have  very  gratuitously  assumed, 
an  appeal  is  repeatedly  made  to  the  Scripture 
before  us. 

From  this  Scripture  the  attempt  is  made  to 
prove  John's  baptism  not  to  be  a  gospel  ordi- 
nance, since  these  disciples  whom  Paul  found 
at  Ephesus,  and  who  had  been  baptized  unto 
John's  baptism,  were  now,  as  they  suppose,  re- 
baptized  by  Paul. 

Could  the  advocates  of  sprinkling  maintain 
their  position,  that  these  disciples  were  re- 
baptized,  yet  it  does  by  no  means  follow 
that  John  did  not  administer  to  his  believing 
converts  the  same  sacred  rite  which  the  hun- 
dred and  twenty  Apostles  administered  to  the 
three  thousand  during  the  feast  of  pentecost. 

One  somewhat  obscure  passage  can  never 
overturn  a  plain  evident  truth.     Yet  is  it  the 


CERTAIN  DISCIPLES  NOT  BAPTIZED.  J 87 

almost  universal  custom  of  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  to  lay  hold  of  the  obscure  passages, 
and  force  them  to  sustain  sprinkling  for  bap- 
tism. Indeed,  my  brethren,  it  requires  no 
little  degree  of  ingenuity  on  the  part  of  Pedo- 
baptists,  to  turn  this  Scripture  to  their  advan- 
tage. At  the  best,  they  have  to  take  a  very 
circuitous  route;  and  that,  too,  at  the  expense 
of  our  Saviour's  baptism,  both  as  being  valid, 
and  as  an  example  for  our  imitation. 

No  plain,  unambitious  disciple  of  our  Lord 
and  Master  could  ever  have  thought,  and  much 
less  dared  to  support  sprinkling  on  a  ground 
which  must  exclude  the  holy  John,  with  all  the 
repenting  and  believing  converts  that  followed 
his  instruction,  from  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. And  yet,  not  only  John,  but  also  Christ, 
the  captain  of  salvation,  the  great  head  of  the 
church,  is  not  allowed  to  have  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  new  and  gospel  dispensation,  when 
he  ratified  the  rite  of  baptism.  It  required 
more  than  a  simple  pious  Christian  to  have 
invented  such  a  scheme,  savouring  more  of 
daring  design  than  of  ardent  love  and  attach- 
ment to  the  Divine  Redeemer. 

The  learned  Dupin  has  well  remarked  that, 
"  If  there  be  obscure  and  difficult  parts  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  not  generally  the  simple  who  abuse 
them ;  hut  the  proud  and  learned  who  make  a 
bad  use  of  them.  For,  in  fine,  it  is  not  the  ig- 
norant and  the  simple  who  have  formed  here- 
sies in  perverting  the  word  of  God.     They  who 


|gg  CERTAIN  DISCIPLES  NOT  BAPTIZED. 

do  so  are  generally  bishops,  priests,  learned 
and  enlightened  persons."  Diss,  pretim.  Sur 
la  Bible,  B.  I.e.  9.  par.  1701. 

And  by  these,  lam  sorry  to  say  it,  yet,  by 
these  men  are  the  people  made  to  believe  that 
John  and  Christ,  and  all  his  disciples  were  not 
scripturally  baptized  !  had  not  even  a  connec- 
tion with  the  Christian  church!!!  That  be- 
fore they  could  be  initiated  into  the  Christian 
church,  they  must  be  re-baptized!  Such  rea- 
soning, I  must  think,  commends  itself  to  no 
intelligent  Christian,  whose  mind  is  free  of 
prejudice,  and  properly  impressed  with  a  sense 
of  divine  things. 

Having  considered,  at  some  length,  the  cer- 
tain identity  of  the  baptism  which  John  ad- 
ministered, with  that  which  the  Apostles 
practised,  and  then  adduced  such  proofs  as 
cannot  fail  to  establish  that  identity  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  successful  contradiction,  I 
may  here  detain  you  only  with  some  few  re- 
marks, touching  the  same  important  point. 

One  of  the  laws  of  argumentation,  as  laid 
down  and  received  by  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren themselves,  is  that,  "  A  doctrine  proved 
by  sufficient  evidence  is  not  to  be  rejected  on 
any  account  whatever."  Dr.  Woods,  cited 
by  Jewett,  p.  54. 

Now  I  humbly  conceive  that  I  haye  suffi- 
ciently proved  the  identity  of  John's  ministry 
with  the  Christian  dispensation.  If  so,  then 
the  controverted  passage  now  under*  exami- 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.        \gQ 

nation  cannot  destroy  that  identity.  But  I 
am  willing,  if  it  can  be  necessary  to  show  still 
further  that  the  gospel  dispensation  com- 
menccd  ivith  the  ministry  of  John. 

Now  you  will  please  take  notice.  The 
Holy  Ghost,  measuring  the  former  dispensa- 
tion, makes  it  end  at  the  coming  of  John  the 
Baptist.  "All  the  prophets,  and  the  law  pro- 
phesied until  John:''     Matt.  xi.  13. 

Again,  Mark  dates  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  at  the  time  that  John  commenced  his 
ministry.     Mark  i.  1 — 4. 

The  Saviour  speaks  of  his  divine  kingdom 
in  the  same  way.  Matt.  xi.  12.  "From  the 
days  of  John  the  Baptist,  until  now."  And 
again:  Peter,  in  the  great  council  convened 
at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  ascen- 
sion, giving  information  as  to  the  necessary 
qualifications  of  him,  who  might  be  elected  to 
fill  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  apostacy 
of  Judas,  particularly  states  that  such  an  one 
must  be  selected  out  of  those  who  had  been 
with  our  Lord,  "beginning  from  the  baptism 
of  John.,,  Or  more  correctly  as  Tyndal  ren- 
ders it;  "  Beginning  at  the  baptism  of  John." 
Acts  i.  22. 

Who,  after  reading  these  Scriptures,  and 
observing  how  Christ  and  his  Apostles  spake 
of  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  can 
deny  that  John  was  a  gospel  minister,  and  that 
the  baptism  he  administered  was  identically 
the  same  as  that  administered  by  the  Apostles? 


1 9Q  JOHNS  BAPTISM  VALID. 

I  may  say,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Johnson, 
"  He  who  will  determine  against  that  which 
he  knows,  because  there  may  be  something 
which  he  knows  not;  he  that  can  set  hypotheti- 
cal possibility  against  acknowledged  certainty, 
is  not  to  be  admitted  among  reasonable  beings." 
Vol.  i.  p.  489. 

But  again,  and  finally,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  same  baptism  which  John  ad-, 
ministered  to  believing  Jews  before  the  Sa- 
viour was  immersed  in  Jordan,  John  continued 
to  administer  to  the  converts  to  the  Christian 
faith  until  he  closed  his  ministry  on  earth. 
And  not  only  John,  but  also  Christ  himself,  by 
his  disciples,  some  of  whom  were  once  John's 
disciples,  and  who  were  the  very  Apostles  of 
our  Lord,  Christ  himself,  %  these  disciples,  ad- 
ministered to  the  repenting  and  believing  Jews, 
the  same  baptism  which  was  practiced  at  the 
first  by  John.  Another  circumstance,  of  itself 
sufficient  to  establish  for  ever  the  identity  of 
Christ's  baptism,  as  administered  by  John  at 
the  first,  and  afterwards  by  the  Apostles,  both 
while  their  Lord  was  with  them,  and  after  he 
was  taken  up  into  heaven. 

For  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to 
Salem,  in  Samaria,  at  the  same  time  that 
Jesus,  by  his  disciples,  was  baptizing  in  the 
land  of  Judea.  John  iii.  22 — 26.  Compare  iv. 
1,  2.  Now  from  all  this,  and  with  what  has 
been  said  respecting  the  same  point  before,  it 
is  certain  that  the  baptism,  which  John  receiv- 


JOHN'S  BAPTISM  VALID  jgj 

ed  and  administered  by  Divine  appointment,  is 
identically  the  same  as  the  baptism  which  the 
Apostles  practised  after  the  glorious  ascension 
of  their  Divine  Lord.  Therefore,  should  it  be 
made  to  appear,  which  it  cannot  be,  that  the 
disciples  which  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  were 
re-baptized,  yet  their  re-baptism  would  not 
militate  in  the  slightest  degree  against  John's 
baptism  being  the  same  as  that  practised  by 
the  Apostles  of  our  Lord,  since  this  is  "  a 
doctrine  proved  by  sufficient  evidence,  and  is 
not  to  be  rejected  on  any  account  whatever" 
And  least  of  all  is  a  plain  truth  to  be  rejected, 
by  straining  a  single  obscure  text. 

All  that  could  be  made  out  of  the  re-bap- 
tizing of  these  disciples,  would  go  to  show, 
not  that  John's  baptism  was  not  a  Christian 
ordinance,  but  that  when  these  certain  dis- 
ciples were  baptized,  their  administrators  did 
not  do  justice  to  the  holy  rite,  and  therefore 
their  baptism  was  deemed  invalid,  and  not 
fellowshipped  by  the  holy  Apostle,  just  on  the 
same  principle  that  sprinkling  is  not  received 
by  Baptists  at  all  as  valid  baptism.  Baptists 
invariably  baptize  those  who  come  over  to 
them  from  Pedobaptist  churches,  having  only 
been  sprinkled.  And  though  such  had  been 
sprinkled  a  thousand  times,  yet  they  are  not 
baptized.  But  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are 
divided  among  themselves  upon  this  subject, 
as  well  as  upon  every  other  which  we  have 
considered.     Some  of  their  most  able  men,  as 


192 


JOHN'S  BAPTISM  VALID. 


Beza,  Calvin,  and  others,  are  more  earnest  in 
showing  that  these  certain  disciples  were  not 
re-baptized,  than  Baptists  are. 

The  mistaken  views  into  which  some  inter- 
preters have  fallen,  respecting  the  re-bapiizing 
of  these  disciples,  have  their  origin  partly  in 
the  force  of  prejudice,  and  partly  by  separating 
v-hat  Paul  said  in  the  fourth  and  -fifth  verses, 
referring  the  fifth  verse,  not  to  Paul,  whose 
language  it  is,  but  to  Luke,  the  historian.  Now 
you  will  observe,  Paul  found  certain  disciples 
who  had  enjoyed  but  limited  advantages.  They 
had,  at  some  previous  period,  heard  of  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  been  taught  the  way  of  salva- 
tion; they  had  believed  on  Christ  Jesus,  whose 
coming  was  fervently  desired,  and  the  subject 
c^f  ardent  anticipation  ;  and  they  had  been  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  on  pro- 
fession of  their  faith.  But  not  enjoying,  in  the 
remote  country  where  they  resided,  conve- 
nient opportunities  for  religious  instruction, 
theij  had  never  learned  any  thing  concerning 
the  supernatural  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Paul, 
ascertaining  their  lack  of  information  upon  this 
point,  and  assuring  them  that  there  was  nothing 
to  forbid  their  enjoying  the  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  l;ud  his  hands  upon  them, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them,  and 
they  spake  with  tongues,  and  prophesied.  This 
interpretation  is  sustained  by  the  learned  Mr. 
L'Enfant,  who  renders  the  fifth  verse  as  a  con- 
tinuation of  Paul's  discourse,  and  not  as  the 


JOHN'S  BAPTISM  VALID. 


193 


words  of  Luke.  He  has  the  rendering  thus: 
"John  indeed  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, but  they  who  heard  him,  and  paid  a 
proper  regard  to  his  ministry,  ivere,  in  effect, 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus,  since  he  was 
the  Messiah  whom  John  spake  of  as  shortly  to 
appear" 

What  renders  it  still  more  certain  that  the 
above  interpretation  is  the  only  one  that  can 
be  sustained  with  any  good  show  of  reason, 
is  the  fact,  that  we  have  a  parallel  case,  in  the 
eighteenth  chapter,  to  the  one  under  examina- 
tion. "A  certain  Jew,  named  Apollos,  an 
eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures, 
came  to  Ephesus.  This  man  was  instructed 
in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  being  fervent  in 
the  spirit,  he  spake  and  taught  diligently  the 
things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism 
of  John.  And  he  began  to  speak  boldly  in  the 
synagogue  ;  whom,  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
had  heard,  they  took  him  unto  them,  and  ex- 
pounded unto  him  the  way  of  God  more  per- 
fectly."   Acts  xviii.  24 — 26.    Compare  v.  2. 

Now  this  is  precisely  what  Paul  did  to  the 
certain  disciples,  with  one  addition,  conferring 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  before  which,  he 
took  them  and  expounded  unto  them  the  way 
of  God  more  perfect ly.  Read  Acts  viii.  15, 
16,  17,  which,  with  xviii.  26,  forms  a  perfect 
parallel  to  the  Scripture  we  are  now  con- 
sidering. 

That  Paul  did  not  baptize  these  disciples,  as 
17 


194 


JOHN'S  BAPTISM  VALID. 


some  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  would  fain 
have  it  to  appear,*  is  settled  for  ever  by  Paul 
himself;  unless  you  impute  to  him  a  degree  of 
inattention  and  forgetfulness  highly  incompa- 
tible with  the  character  of  an  inspired  Apostle. 
Paul  vindicates  himself  against  such  a  charge, 
when  he  says,  "I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains:  and  I  bap- 
tized also  the  household  of  Stephanas;  besides, 
I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other." 
1  Cor.  i.  14 — 16.  Had  the  Apostle  baptized 
the  disciples  whom  he  found  at  Ephesus,  and 
upon  whom  he  laid  his  hands,  and  they  re- 
ceived the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  would 
have  mentioned  them  when  he  was  summing 
up  the  number  of  those  whom  he  had  baptized. 
But  he  enumerates  them  not,  because  he  bap- 
tized them  not. 

I  am  happy  in  the  thought,  that  Calvin,  the 
great  reformer,  most  fully  sustains  me  in  the 
above  interpretation  of  that  long  controverted 
Scripture. 

"For  myself,"  says  he,  "I  grant  that  the 
baptism  they  had  received  was  the  true  bap- 
tism of  John,  and  the  very  same  with  the 
baptism  of  Christ ;  but  I  deny  they  were  bap- 
tized again.'''     Institu.  vol.  ii.  p.  433. 

To  which  I  may  subjoin,  a  passage  from  the 

*  Dr.  Whitby  says,  respecting  these  disciples,  that  "  Pan} 
baptized  them  again,  who  had  before  received  the  bun 
tism  of  John."    See  his  Com.  on  Matt  iii.  11. 


JOHNS  BAPTISM  VALID.  I95 

works  of  Dr.  Knnpp,  Professor  of  Theology  in 
the  University  of  Halle. 

He  says,  "  The  practice  of  the  first  Chris- 
tian Church  confirms  the  point,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  John  was  considered  essentially  the 
same  with  Christian  baptism.  For  those  who 
acknowledged  that  they  had  professed  by  the 
baptism  of  John,  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  and  who,  in  consequence  of  this,  had 
become,  in  fact,  his  disciples,  and  had  believed 
in  him,  were  not,  in  a  single  instance,  baptized 
again  into  Christ ;  because  this  was  considered 
as  having  been  already  done.  Hence  we  do 
not  find  that  any  Apostle,  or  any  other  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus,  was  the  second  time  baptized; 
not  even  that  Apollos  mentioned  in  Acts  xviii. 
25,  because  he  had  before  believed  in  Jesus 
as  Christ,  although  he  had  received  only  the 
baptism  of  John." — Christian  Theolog}7,  vol.  ii. 
p.  515. 

I  shall  close  my  remarks  respecting  these 
certain  disciples  at  Ephesus,  by  a  citation  from 
the  writings  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  a  most  zealous 
advocate  for  sprinkling,  in  support  of  which  he 
lent  the  whole  weight  of  his  influence,  unless 
controlled  by  the  potency  of  truth.    He  says: 

"Not  that  they  were  re-baptized,  but  that, 
now  dowiing  to  the  knowledge  of  the  proper 
end  of  John's  baptism,  namely,  to  believe  in 
Jesus  ;  as  ver.  4,  they  own  their  baptism  to  such 
an  end  and  construction.  For,  1.  What  need 
had  they  to  be  re-baptized,  when,  in  that  first 


196  JOHN'S  BAPTISM  VALID. 

baptism  they  had  taken,  they  had  come  in  to 
the  profession  of  the  gospel,  and  of  Christ,  as 
far  as  the  doctrine  thai  had  brought  them  in, 
could  teach  them  ?  It  was  the  change  of  their 
profession  from  Judaism  to  Evangelism,  that 
required  their  being  baptized,  and  not  the  de- 
grees of  their  growth  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
gospel,  into  the  profession  of  which  they  had 
been  baptized  already.  How  many  baptisms 
must  the  Apostles  have  undergone,  if  every 
signal  degree  of  their  coming  on  to  the  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  Christ  might 
have  required — nay,  might  have  admitted — a 
new  baptizing? 

"2.  If  these  men  were  re-baptized,  then 
must  the  same  be  concluded  of  all  that  had  re- 
ceived the  baptism  of  John,  when  they  came 
to  '  new  degrees'  of  the  knowledge  of  Jesus; 
which,  as  it  is  incredible,  because  there  is  not 
the  least  tittle  of  mention  of  such  a  thing,  so  is 
it  unimaginable  in  the  case  of  those  of  the 
Apostles  that  were  baptized  by  John;  for  who 
should  baptize  them  again  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  since  Jesus  himself  baptized  none.  John 
iv.  3. 

"3.  These  men  had  taken  on  them  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  and  the  profession  of  Christ, 
in  the  baptism  of  John,  that  they  had  received; 
therefore,  unless  we  will  suppose  a  baptism  of 
faith,  different  from  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
and  a  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  different 
from  the  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ,  it  will 


A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED. 


197 


be  hard  to  find  a  reason  why  these  men  should 
undergo  a  new  baptizing." — His  works,  vol. 
iii.  pp.  234,  235. 


Section  V. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  TREASURER  OF   CANDACE,  QUEEN  OF 
ETHIOPIA.      ACTS  VIII.  36 39. 


"  And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water;  and  the  Eunuch  said, 
See,  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be 
baptized?  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he 
answered,  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God. 

"And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand 
still,  and  they  icent  down  both  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized 
him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 
water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
Philip,  and  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more;  and 
he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing." 

This  Scripture  speaks  for  itself. 

The  Holy  Ghost  has  condescended  once 
again  to  speak  of  baptism  with  circumstantial 
precision. 

No  language,  not  even  the  copious  Greek, 
when  employed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  has  the 
power  of  expressing  the  immersion  of  one 
17* 


19g  A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED. 

man  by  another  in  water,  if  the  38th  and  39th 
verses  of  this  chapter  do  not  express  that  sense. 

They  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized — 
immersed  him.  Jlnd  they  came  up  out  of 
the  ivater. 

As  these  phrases  stand  in  the  original,  there 
is  no  Greek  word  that  can  be  added  to  them 
to  make  them  more  clearly  express  a  descent 
into  water,  an  immersion  of  one  party  by  the 
other,  and  an  ascent  out  of  the  water,  after 
the  immersion  had  taken  place.  Nor  has  the 
English  the  power  of  expressing  the  above 
sense  more  plainly,  than  it  is  expressed  in  our 
Testament,  when  the  word  "  baptized"  is  cor- 
rectly translated.  Moreover,  the  word  "bap- 
tized" receives  a  most  faithful  explanation  from 
the  connexion  in  which  it  stands.  Every  cir- 
cumstance mentioned,  forces  upon  the  mind  the 
conviction  that  this  baptism  was  by  immersion. 
Indeed,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  perfectly  super- 
fluous, not  to  say  presumptuously  daring,  to 
attempt  to  improve  upon  the  language  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  as  here  employed.  I  will  only 
say,  an  attempt  is  made  to  evade  the  force  of 
this  Scripture  in  favour  of  immersion,  by  the 
bold  assertion  that  the  qualifying  particles 
"into"  and  u  out  of"  mean  only  "  to"  and 

Such  sophistry  illy  becomes  those  who  pre- 
tend to  admit  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from 
God.   Indeed,  my  spirit  is  overwhelmed  within 


A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED.  jgg 

me,  while  I  am  obliged  to  consider  the  fearful 
extent  to  which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  have 
gone,  to  justify  themselves  in  practising  sprink- 
ling for  Christian  baptism.  Were  it  right  to 
suffer  sin  upon  a  brother,  I  would  gladly  draw 
the  mantle  of  oblivion  over  the  entire  course 
by  which  sprinkling,  and  infant  sprinkling  are 
kept  alive  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  same  course  of  reasoning,  with  the 
same  principles  of  interpretation,  if  admitted, 
would  support  any  error  whatever,  as  gospel 
truth,  and  at  the  same  time  destroy  any  and 
every  doctrine  of  our  holy  religion. 

For,  let  it  be  remarked,  that,  if  there  are  any 
instances  where  "  eis,"  (»$,)  and  "  ec"  (**) 
mean  "  into"  and  "  out  of"  the  case  of  Philip 
baptizing  the  Eunuch,  is  one  such  instance. 
All  the  circumstances  of  the  case  go  to  sup- 
port the  idea  of  their  descent  into  the  water, 
and  their  ascent  out  of  the  ivater,  after  the 
baptism,  or  immersion,  was  administered. 

Now  let  us  apply  the  same  principle  of  in- 
terpretation to  other  texts,  that  our  Pedobap- 
tist brethren  apply  to  the  one  under  examina- 
tion, and  see  if  it  holds  good.  If  not,  let  it  be 
for  ever  abandoned,  for  the  same  principle  is 
plead  by  the  advocates  of  Universal  Salva- 
tion, in  favour  of  the  idea  that  the  wicked  do 
not  go  into  punishment  after  death. 

Now  mark,  sis,  into,  is  used  in  the  following 
passages.  Mat.  xxv.  41.  Then  shall  he  say 
also   unto  them  on  the  left  hand,  depart  from 


200  A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED. 

me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared 
for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 

Verse  46.  And  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into 
life  eternal.    Com.  Mat.  xiii.  42,  50. 

Luke  xvi.  28.  The  rich  man  in  hell  lifted  up 
his  eyes,  being  in  torment,  and  said,  I  have 
five  brethren — that  he  may  testify  unto  them, 
lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  of  torment. 

Mat.  xiii.  47.  A  net  that  was  cast  into 
the  sea. 

Mat.  xviii.  30.    Cast  him  into  prison. 

Mark  v.  13.  And  the  unclean  spirits  entered 
into  the  swine,  and  the  herd  ran  violently 
down  a  steep  place  into  the  sea,  and  were 
choked  in  the  sea. 

Luke  xvi.  22.  Lazarus  was  carried  by  the 
angeis  into  Abraham's  bosom. 

John  vi.  16,  17.  His  disciples  went  down 
(sttt)  unto  the  sea,  and  entered  («$)  into  a  ship. 

John  xxi.  7.  And  did  cast  himself  into 
the  sea. 

Acts  i.  11.  Why  stand  ye  gazing  up  into 
heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken  up 
(a<j>')  from  you  («$)  into  heaven,  shall  so  come 
in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into 
heaven.  I  might  tire  your  patience  by  enume- 
rating the  passages  where  "  eis"  means  into. 
It  sometimes,  also,  means  "to"  "unto"  and 
"towards"  a  place.  As  I  go  to,  or  unto  Phila- 
delphia, i.  e.  into  the  city. 

The  proposition  "  ec,"  \ix)    "  out  of"  is  em- 


A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED.  201 

ployed  as  follows:  Mat.  xxvii.  52,  53.  And 
the  graves  were  opened,  and  many  bodies  of 
saints  which  slept,  arose,  and  came  out  of 
the  graves  after  his  resurrection.  Mat.  ii.  15. 
Out  of  Egypt.  Acts  vii.  3,  4,  40.  Rev.  xx.  7. 
Out  of  his  prison  ;  v.  9,  out  of  heaven ;  v.  12. 
The  dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things 
which  were  written  in  the  book,  et  a]. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  multiply  in- 
stances of  the  kind,  where  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  "  eis"  and  "  ec,"  are  "into"  and  "out 
of\"  and  where,  should  we  adopt  the  sophistry 
of  captious  disputants,  and  the  skeptical  rea- 
soning of  the  followers  of  Pyrrho,  we  should 
do  worse  than  make  nonsense  with  the  word 
of  God. 

Suppose  we  render  the  above  cited  passages 
according  to  the  principles  which  some  of  the 
advocates  of  sprinkling  have  laid  down  as  the 
rule  by  which  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  prepo- 
sitions "  eis"  and  "  ec"  Then,  Jesus  shall  say, 
depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  to  the  margin  of 
everlasting  fire.  Not  into  it!!!  And  these 
shall  go  away  to  the  border  of  everlasting  pun- 
ishment. Not  into  'punishment ! ! !  A  net  was 
cast  to  the  edge  of  the  sea,  and  gathered  of 
every  l<ind.  Not  into  the  sea!!!  The  herd 
ran  violently  down  a  steep  place  to  the  brink 
of  the  sea,  and  were  choked,  i.  e.  drowned,  on 
the  shore  ! ! !  Many  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept,  arose,  and  came  from  the  verge  of  the 
graves.     Not  out  of  them  ! ! ! 


202  A  NOBLEMAN  BAPTIZED. 

Well  has  Dr.  Doddridge  remarked,  that,  "  It 
would  be  very  unnatural  to  suppose  that  they 
went  down  to  the  water,  merely  that  Philip 
might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his  hand  to  pour 
on  the  Eunuch.  A  person  of  his  dignity  had, 
no  doubt,  many  vessels  in  his  baggage,  on  such 
a  journey  through  so  desert  a  country,  a  pre- 
caution absolutely  necessary  for  travellers  in 
those  parts,  and  never  omitted  by  them."  In 
loco. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  land  of 
Palestine  was  chosen,  before  all  other  portions 
of  the  earth,  for  its  fertility,  and  its  abundant 
resources  of  every  kind,  especially  those  of  wa- 
ter, as  the  promised  land  of  blessing.  It  was 
held  to  view  as  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey;  by  which,  its  richness  and  facilities  of 
every  kind  to  render  it  a  land  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired, as  a  place  of  residence,  are  beautifully 
and  faithfully  symbolized. 

Indeed,  I  am  compelled  to  say  that,  it  is  a 
most  visionary  plea,  to  which  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  have  resorted,  to  represent  the  land 
of  Canaan,  in  the  times  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, as  a  barren,  sterile,  sandy  desert,  having 
Ijeither  fountains,  nor  rivers  of  voter  ! 

Alas!  what  liberties  men  take  with  theBible  ! 
Sprinkling  must  he  supported  at  the  expense  of 
every  real  truth  of  our  holy  religion! 

The  Bible  must  be  contradicted,  its  sense 
must  be  frittered  away,  and  every  thing  ex- 
punged from  the  sacred  page  which  comes  in 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL.  203 

competition  with  this  Darling — a  legitimate 
offspring  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  now 
nursed  in  the  lap  of  Christianity. 

In  looking  at  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as 
presented  to  men  in  the  Bible  ;  considering  the 
places  where  it  was  administered,  when  the 
places  are  mentioned  at  all,  and  the  circum- 
stances attending  it,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know, 
how  an  enlightened  Christian  can  advocate 
sprinkling  for  one  moment,  unless  it  be  on  the 
ground  to  which  Mr.  Henry  alludes,  when  he 
says,  "  How  often  are  the  prejudices  of  bigotry 
held  fast  against  the  clearest  discoveries  and 
plainest  dictates  of  divine  truth  /" 


Section   VI. 

A  MOST  FULL  AND  COMPREHENSIVE  EXPOSITION  OF  THE 
ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM,  BOTH  IN  RESPECT  TO  ITS  DE- 
SIGN AND  MODE  OF  ADMINISTRATION  ;  BY  THE  APOSTLE 
PAUL. 

"  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into 
his  death  ?  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father;  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death  ;  we  shall 
be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection." 


204  BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 

"Buried  with  him  in  Baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead."  Rom.  vi.  3 — 5.     Colos.  ii.  12. 

No  interpretation  of  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, as  well  as  of  its  design,  can  be  more 
beautiful  and  just,  than  the  one  found  in  the 
Scriptures  here  cited. 

The  King  of  life  and  glory  left  his  Church 
unincumbered  with  a  multiplicity  of  rites  and 
ceremonies  which  so  particularly  marked  that 
dispensation,  which,  at  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 
siah vanished  away.  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that,  while  the  Saviour  did  not  burden  his  fol- 
lowers with  many  external  rites,  yet  he  did  not 
entirely  omit  to  address  our  senses  by  emblem- 
atical representations. 

At  his  instance  there  were  brought  into 
being  two  sacramental  observances,  answer- 
ing to  the  two  grand  distinguishing  features  of 
the  Christian  system.  Nothing  can  be  more 
comprehensive,  and  at  the  same  time  instruc- 
tive, than  the  sacraments  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  Baptism  ;  bespeaking  alike,  both  the  wis- 
dom and  compassion  of  the  King  in  Zion. 

For  let  it  be  observed  that,  the  Christian 
religion  is  made  to  differ  from  all  others,  in 
almost  every  particular,  but  especially  so, 
and  chiefly  in  the  two  great  cardinal  points, 
the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death  of  the 
lamb  of  God  ;  and  his  resurrection  from  . 
the  dead,  to  the  glory  he  had  with  the  fa- 
ther before  the  world  was. 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 


205 


Now  the  Saviour,  in  compassion  to  our  in- 
firmities, to  aid  our  faith  in  receiving  these 
sublime  and  mysterious  truths,  graciously  con- 
descended to  hold  them  forth  by  two  emblem- 
atical and  expressive  institutions. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  most  significantly  re- 
presents the  death  of  our  Saviour;  holding  to 
view  the  efficacy  of  that  blood  which  was  shed 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  sublime  rite  is 
to  be  a  standing  memorial  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  to  the  end  of  time.  "For  as  often  as 
ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  1 
Cor.  xi.  23—26.     Luke  xxii.  19,  20. 

Baptism,  the  only  other  divinely  appointed 
rite  connected  with  the  New  Testament  dis- 
pensation, i  e.  the  Church  of  Christ,  most 
beautifully  and  instructively  represents  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
as  well  as  our  own  future  interment  and  resur- 
rection to  life.  Connected  with  which,  there 
is  this  secondary  idea,  that  whereas  Christ, 
after  his  death  and  resurrection  dieth  no  more, 
but  liveth  unto  God,  and  whereas  Christians, 
after  their  final  death  and  resurrection  shall  be 
divested  of  the  last  remains  of  sin  and  be  made 
perfect  before  God  and  the  Lamb,  so  now, 
having  been,  by  baptism,  represented  as  dead, 
buried,  and  raised  again,  they  should  live  a 
life  corresponding  to  that  which  they  shall  live 
in  heaven.  Such  is  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
apostle  in  this  most  comprehensive  and  instruc- 
18 


206 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 


tive  passage.  The  beauty  and  peculiar  fitness 
of  which  are  still  more  apparent  in  the  original 
text,  as  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  un- 
okscured  by  the  mingling  of  Greek  and  Eng- 
lish words  as  in  our  version. 

The  apostle's  language  is  so  clear  and  ex- 
pressive, in  conveying  to  us  a  knowledge  of 
the  design  of  baptism,  and  the  mode  of  its  ad- 
ministration, as  to  make  it  a  matter  of  perfect 
surprise,  that  any  should  mistake  his  mean- 
ing. 

That  you  may  see  the  exact  import  of  the 
apostle  in  his  very  pertinent  explanation  of 
this  Holy  Rite  in  the  Christian  Church,  J  will 
read  the  passage,  beginning  with  the  third  and 
ending  with  the  thirteenth  verse ;  translating 
the  Greek  words  baptize  and  baptism  into 
English  ;  supplying  the  ellipsis  or  omission  in 
the  fourth  verse,  as  the  apostle  has  supplied  it 
in  the  fifth;  and  giving  a  paraphrastic  ren- 
dering to  the  third  and  fifth  verses. 

3.  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
immersed  in  the  manner  of  Christ  Jesus  were 
immersed  into  an  acknowledgment  of  his  death 
and  resurrection  1 

4.  "  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
immersion  in  the  likeness  of  death,  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father;  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life. 

5.  "  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death  ;  we  shall  be  also 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection ; 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL.  207 

6.  "  Knowing  this,  that  previous  to  our  im- 
mersion, our  old  man  (ovvtsstavpu>9rj)  was  cruci- 
fied with  Christ,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be 
destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve 
sin. 

7.  "  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin. 

8.  "Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ  we  be- 
lieve that  we  shall  also  live  with  him; 

9.  "Knowing  that  Christ  beins:  raised  from 
the  dead,  dieth  no  more,  death  hath  no  more 
dominion  over  him. 

10.  "  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin 
once;  but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto 
God. 

11.  "Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves 
to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin;  but  alive  unto 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

12.  "  Let  not  sin  reign  therefore  in  your 
mortal  body,  that  ye  should  obey  it  in  the 
lusts  thereof. 

13.  "  Neither  yield  ye  your  members  as  in- 
struments of  unrighteousness  unto  sin ;  but 
yield  yourselves  unto  God,  as  those  that  are 
alive  from  the  dead,  and  your  members  as  in- 
struments of  righteousness  unto  God." 

The  Christian  believes  in  Christ,  in  his  divi- 
nity, death,  burial,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion to  glory.  He  believes  that  his  own 
mortal  body,  after  a  season  of  repose  in  the 
grave,  shall  come  forth  in  the  likeness  of  the 
Saviour's  glorified  and  exalted  body. 

He  believes  alike  in  the  salvation  of  the  soul 
and  the  salvation  of  the  body  of  every  saint. 


208 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 


And,  as  his  soul  has  been  "  crucified  with 
Christ,"  as  in  the  bitter  anguish  at  her  con- 
version, so  his  body  has  been  "buried  with 
Christ  by  immersion  in  the  likeness  of  death, 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father ;  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if 
we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection.  Being,  as  the  Apostle 
adds,  "Buried  with  him  in  immersion,  where- 
in also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead." 

Such,  my  brethren,  is  the  import  of  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  as  explained  and  enforced 
by  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Romans.  And  you  will  see,  by 
my  explanation,  that  I  perfectly  accord  with 
the  Apostle ;  or,  in  other  words,  you  will 
bear  me  testimony,  that,  according  to  what  I 
have  written,  I  fully  believe  what  the  Apostle 
has  said. 

In  agreement  with  wdiich,  I  find  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge piously  saying,  when  remarking  on  the 
phrase  "  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ."  "  It 
seems  the  part  of  candour  to  confess  that  here 
is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by 
immersion,  as  most  usual  in  these  early  times."# 

I  am  aware  that  some  Pedobaptists  refuse 

*  Edinburgh  Reviewers.  "  We  have  rarely  met,  for 
example,  with  a  more  weak  and  t-anciful  piece  of  rea- 
soning-, than  that  by  which  Mr.  Ewing  would  persuade 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL.  £09 

to  admit  what  the  pious  Doddridge  has,  and 
what  he  considered  the  part  of  candour  to 
confess. 

There  are  some  who  endeavour  to  evade 
the  force  of  the  Apostle's  language,  and  would 
fain  have  it  appear  that  the  "  burial"  and  "bap- 
tism," of  which  mention  is  made,  are  nothing 
more  than  an  internal  or  spiritual  death  ;  and 
that  no  allusion  is  had  here  to  the  manner  of 
baptizing  the  faithful  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  for  me  to  spend  a 
moment,  in  meeting  such  an  objection,  before 
those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  nature  of 
language,  are  permitted  to  read  for  them- 
selves, and  believe  in  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.  Such  will  at  once 
perceive  the  sophistry  of  this  singular  objec- 
tion. All,  it  should  seem,  must  acknowledge 
that  whatever  the  thing  signified  might  be,  it 
is  represented  by  a  baptism,  and  then  the 
Apostle  explains  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptize,  when  he  calls  it  a  burial  and  resur- 
rection in  the  likeness  of  Christ;  and  then 
again,  when  he  terms  it  a  planting  together 
in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death,  and  also  in  a 
likeness  of  his  resurrection. 


us  that  there  Is  no  allusion  to  the  mode  by  Immersion,  in 
the  expression  'buried  with  him  in  baptism.'  This  point 
ought  to  be  frankly  admitted,  and  indeed  cannot  be 
denied  with  any  show  of  reason."  In  Mr.  Carson's  An- 
swer, p.  40. 
18* 


210  BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 

Indeed,  to  be  consistent  with  their  own  in- 
terpretation of  this  Scripture,  that  the  death 
and  burial  of  which  Paul  speaks,  "  are  in 
respect  to  sin,  that  is,  in  a  moral  and  spiritual 
sense,"  and  then  interpret  baptism  "  to  sig- 
nify a  spiritual  purification,"  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  ought,  to  be  consistent  with  them- 
selves, to  deny  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  consequently,  the  resurrection 
of  our  bodies  at  the  last  day.  For  every 
one  must  perceive  that  the  Apostle  applies 
the  words  burial  and  baptism  to  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  So,  if  baptism 
here  does  not  mean  a  burial  and  resurrection, 
"then  is  Christ  not  risen;  and  if  Christ  be  not 
risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your 
faith  is  also  vain.  For  if  the  dead  rise  not, 
then  is  not  Christ  raised.  But  now  is  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first 
fruits  of  them  that  slept.  Else  what  shall 
they  do  who  have  been  immersed  in  the  like- 
ness of  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all ; 
for  what  purpose  are  they  then  immersed  in 
the  likeness  of  the  dead  ?"*  1  Cor.  xv.  14,  16, 
20,  29. 


*  John  Edwards.  "Some  of  the  fathers  hold  that 
the  Apostle's  argument  in  the  text  is  of  this  sort  :  If 
there  should  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  hereafter, 
why  is  baptism  so  significant  a  symbol  of  our  dying-  and 
rising-  again,  and  also  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  The  immersion  into  the  water  was  thoug-ht  to 
sig-nify  the  death  of  Christ,  and  their  coming-  out  denotes 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL.  ^H 

But  wherefore  this  great  effort  to  evade  the 
force  of  the  Apostle's  language  in  the  sixth  of 
Romans  and  elsewhere?  Just  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  sprinkling  is  baptism. 

Let  us  see  for  a  moment  how  this  Scripture 
would  read  with  sprinkling  inserted  in  the 
room  of  immersion.  "Therefore  we  are  bu- 
ried with  him  by  sprinkling  into  death,  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  &c."  "  Buried  with 
him  in  sprinkling,  ivherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him."  &c. 

To  show  the  fallacy  of  every  effort  that  has 
been  made  to  get  around  the  plain  instruction 
of  the  apostle,  in  order  to  support  sprinkling 
for  baptism,  let  me  here  subjoin  some  few  of 
the  frank  concessions  of  some  of  the   most 


his  rising  again,  and  did  no  less  represent  their  own  fu- 
ture resurrection."  In  Stennett's  Answer  to  Addington, 
p.  105. 

The  author  of  the  Apostolic  Constitution  says  : 
"Baptism  was  given  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ, 
the  water  his  burial."     Con.  Apos.  Lib.  iii.  c.  17. 

Peter  Martyr  says  :  "  As  Christ,  by  baptism,  hath 
drawn  us  with  him  into  his  death  and  burial;  so  he  hath 
drawn  us  out  unto  life.  This  doth  the  dipping  into  the 
waters,  and  the  issuing  forth  again,  signify  when  we  are 
baptized."     See  Westlake,  p.  5. 

Mr.  Manton  says  :  "  The  putting  the  baptized  person 
into  the  water  denoteth  and  proclaimeth  the  burial  of 
Christ;  and  we  by  submitting  to  it  are  baptized  with 
him,  or  profess  to  be  dead  to  sin;  for  none  but  the  dead 
are  buried.  So  that  it  signifieth  Christ's  death  for  sin, 
and  our  dying  unto  sin."     Ibid. 


212 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A   BURIAL. 


able  Pedobaptist  authors,  who  felt,  as  did  Dr. 
Doddridge,  that  it  was  the  part  of  candour  to 
confess  that,  in  the  sixth  of  Romans,  there  is 
an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion. 

Dr.  Whitby,  a  learned  Pedobaptist,  and  most 
highly  esteemed  by  our  Episcopal  friends,  for 
his  commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  and 
for  more  than  forty  other  learned  works,  says: 

"  It  being  so  expressly  declared  here,  Rom. 
vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  that  we  are  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water, 
and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity 
to  his  death,  by  dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence, 
and  this  immersion  being  religiously  observed  by 
all  Christians  for  thirteen  centuries,  and 
approved  by  our  Church,  and  the  change  of  it 
into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance 
from  the  author  of  this  institution,  or  any  li- 
cense from  any  Council  of  the  Church,  being 
that  with  the  Romish  still  urges  to  justify  his 
refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity ;  it  were  to  be 
wished  that  this  custom  might  be  again  of 
general  use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted,  as 
of  old  in  the  Clinici,  or  in  present  danger  of 
death."  Note  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

So  Lord  Archbishop  Tillotson,  of  Canterbu- 
ry, remarks  on  Rom.  vi.  3 — 5.     Col.  iii.  1. 

"  Where  we  see  that  to  be  baptized  into  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  to  be  bap- 
tized into  the  similitude  and  likeness  of  them  ; 
and  the  resemblance  is  this ;  that  as  Christ, 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 


213 


being  dead  was  buried  in  the  grave,  and  after 
some  stay  in  it  was  raised  again  out  of  it,  by  the 
glorious  power  of  God  to  a  new  and  heavenly 
life,  being  not  long  after  taken  up  into  heaven, 
to  live  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  so  Christians 
when  they  were  baptized,  were  immersed  into 
the  water,  their  bodies  being  covered  alt  over 
with  it  ;  which  is  therefore  called  our  being 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  and 
after  some  short  stay  under  water,  were  raised 
or  taken  up  again  out  of  it,  as  if  they  had  been 
recovered  to  a  new  life."  His  folio  works,  vol. 
3,  p.  255.* 

*  Mr.  George  Whitefield.  "It  is  certain  that  in  the 
words  of  our  text,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  there  is  an  allusion  to 
the  manner  of  baptism,  which  was  by  immersion,  which 
is  what  our  own  church  allows,"  &c.  Eighteen  Sermons, 
p.  297. 

Mr.  Johst  Wesley.  "  Buried  with  him — alluding"  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing-  by  immersion."  Note  on 
Rom.  vi.  4. 

Mr.  Wells.  "St.  Paul  here  alludes  to  immersion,  or 
dipping-  the  whole  body  under  water  in  baptism  ;  which 
he  intimates,  did  typify  the  death  and  burial  (of  the  per- 
son baptized)  to  sin,  and  his  rising-  up  out  of  the  water 
did  typify  his  resurrection  to  newness  of  life."  lllust. 
Bib.  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

Archbishop  Skcker.  "  Burying,  as  it  were,  the  person 
baptized  in  the  water,  and  raising- him  out  again,  without 
0.UESTIOX,  was  anciently  the  more  usual  method  ;  on  ac- 
count of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  baptism  as  represent- 
ing- both  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and 
what  is  grounded  on  them, — our  being  dead  and  buried 
to  sin,  and  our  rising  again  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
Lect.  on  Catechism,  L.  xxxv. 

Adam  Clarke.  "When  he  [the  person  baptized]  came 


214  BAPTISM   COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 

Says  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  on  Rom.  vi.  4,  in 
his  "Exposition  of  the  Church  Catechism," 
printed  1730,  p.  158.  "In  the  primitive  times, 
the  manner  of  baptism  was  by  immersion,  or 
dipping  the  whole  body  into  the  water.     And 


up  out  of  the  water,  he  seemed  to  have  a  resurrection  to 
life.  He  was,  therefore,  supposed  to  throw  off  his  old 
Gentile  state,  as  he  threw  oft' his  clothes,  and  to  assume  a 
new  character,  as  the  baptized  generally  put  on  new  or 
fresh  garments  "  Comment  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

Enclycopaedia  Ecclesiastica.  (This  splendid  work, 
now  publishing1,  A.  D.  1835,  under  the  patronage  of 
the  highest  authorities  in  the  British  nation,  both  in 
church  and  state,  after  stating  the  reasons  urged  in  de- 
fence of  sprinkling,  proceeds,)  "  Whatever  weight, 
however,  may  be  in  these  reasons  as  a  defence  for  the 
present  practice  of  sprinkling,  it  is  evident  that  dur- 
ing the  first  ages  of  the  church,  and  for  many  centuries 
afterwards,  the  practice  of  immersion  prevailed;  and 
which  seems  indeed  never  to  be  departed  from,  except 
where  it  was  administered  to  a  person  at  the  point  of 
death,  or  upon  the  bed  of  sickness, — which  was  consi- 
dered indeed  as  not  giving  the  party  the  full  privileges 
of  baptism — or  when  there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply  of 
water.  Except  in  the  above  cases,  the  custom  was  to 
dip  or  immerse  the  whole  body.  Hence  St.  Barnabas 
says,  We  go  down  into  the  water,"  &c.  &c.  Article,  , 
Baptism.     Quoted  by  Pengilly. 

Bishop  Bossuet.  "  We  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by 
the  acts  of  Councils,  and  by  the  ancient  Rituals,  that  for 
THIRTEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS,  baptism  was  thus 
[by  immersion]  administered  throughout  the  whole 
church,  as  far  as  possible."  In  Stennett's  Answer  to 
Russen,  p.  176. 

Stackhouse.  "  Several  authors  have  shown,  and  proved, 
that  this  immersion  continued,  as  much  as  possible,  to 
be  used  for  thirteen  hundred  tears  after  Christ.  Hist, 
of  the  Bible,  P.  8,  p.  1234. 


BAPTISM  COMPARED  TO  A  BURIAL. 


215 


this  manner  of  doing  it  was  a  very  significant 
emblem  of  the  dying  and  rising  again,  refer- 
red to  by  St.  Paul  in  the  above  mentioned 
similitude-" 

Dr.  Macknight  says,  "Christ's  baptism  was 
an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. In  like  manner,  the  baptism  of  believers 
is  emblematical  of  their  own  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection." 

"Planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death.  The  burying  of  Christ,  and  of  be- 
lievers, first  in  the  water  of  baptism,  and  after- 
wards in  the  earth,  is  fitly  enough  compared 
to  the  planting  of  seeds  in  the  earth,  because 
the  effect,  in  both  cases,  is  a  reviviscence  to  a 
state  of  greater  perfection."  Apost.  Epis.  Notes 
Rom.  vi.  4,  5. 

Assembly  of  Divines.  "If  we  have  been 
planted  together,  fyc.  By  this  elegant  simili- 
tude the  apostle  represents  to  us,  that,  as  a 
plant  that  is  set  in  the  earth  lieth  as  dead  and 
immoveable  for  a  time,  but  after  springs  up 
and  flourishes,  so  Christ's  body  lay  dead  for  a 
while  in  the  grave,  but  sprung  up  and  flourish- 
ed in  his  resurrection  ;  and  we  also,  when  we 
are  baptized,  are  buried,  as  it  were,  in  the 
water  for  a  time,  but  after  are  raised  up  to 
newness  of  life."  Annot.  in  loco. 


2X6  BAPTISM  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


Section  VII. 

THE    BAPTISM    OF    THE    ISRAELITES    UNTO    MOSES  IN    THE 
CLOUD  AND  IN  THE  SEA. 

1  Cor.  x.  1.  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all 
our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  pass- 
ed through  the  sea  ;  2.  And  were  all  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

Dr.  Geo.  Home,  speaking  of  the  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea  says  ;  "  In  this  amazing 
transaction  let  us  behold,  as  in  a  glass,  the  sal- 
vation of  believers  by  baptism,  through  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
made  the  depths  of  the  grave,  as  he  had  done 
those  of  the  sea,  a  way  for  his  ransomed  to  pass 
over."  Notes  on  Ps.  lxxvii.  10. 

"Witsius,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "expounds  the 
place  to  this  effect;  '  How  were  the  Israelites 
baptized  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea,  seeing 
they  were  neither  immersed  in  the  sea,  nor 
wetted  by  the  cloud?  It  is  to  be  considered 
that  the  apostle  here  uses  the  term  '  baptism' 
in  a  figurative  sense,  yet  there  is  some  agree- 
ment to  the  external  sign.  The  sea  is  water, 
and  a  cloud  differs  but  little  from  water.  The 
cloud  hung  over  their  heads,  and  the  sea  sur- 
rounded them  on  each  side;  and  so  the  water 
in  regard  to  those  that  are  baptized.'  In  Paed. 
Exam.  Vol.  I.  p.  185. 


BAPTISM  A  FIGURE. 


217 


Whitby.  "  They  were  covered  with  the  sea 
on  both  sides,  Exod.  xiv.  22  ;  so  that  both  the 
cloud  and  the  sea  had  some  resemblance  to  our 
being  covered  with  water  in  baptism.  Their 
going  into  the  sea  resembled  the  ancient  rite  of 
going  into  the  water;  and  their  coming  out  of 
it,  their  rising  up  out  of  the  water."  Ibid.  p.  187. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  a  cloud  was  a 
symbol  of  the  Divine  presence.  In  it,  the  Lord 
often  concealed  himself  from  the  view  of  mor- 
tals, as  the  water  in  baptism  does  the  person 
immersed.  "  Lo,  I  come  unto  thee  in  a  thick 
cloud"  "  Then  a  cloud  covered  the  tent  of  the 
congregation."  Exod.  xix.  9,  xl.  34.  "I. will 
appear  in  the  cloud  upon  the  mercy  seat."  Lev. 
xvi.  2.  "  Behold  a  bright  cloud  overshadowed 
them."  Matt.  xvii.  5.  "  A  cloud  received  him 
out  of  their  sight."  Acts  i.  9.  These  all  might  be 
said,  by  a  metaphor,  to  be  baptized  in  a  cloud. 


Section  VIII. 

BAPTISM,  AN  EXPRESSIVE    FIGURE  OF    OUR  SALVATION,  BY 
THE  RESURRECTION  OF    JESUS  CHRIST. 

1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.  The  long  suffering  of  God 
waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was 
preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls, 
were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  where- 
unto  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not 
19 


218  BAPTISM  A  FIGURE. 

the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God) 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Dr.  Owen  says,  "  I  deny  not  but  that  there 
is  a  great  analogy  between  salvation  by  the  ark, 
and  that  by  baptism,  inasmuch  as  the  one  did 
represent,  and  the  other  doth  exhibit  Christ 
himself."  On  Heb.  vol.  iv.  p.  138.  Williams' 
Abr. 

Macknight.  "  This  ansiver  of  a  good  con- 
science being  made  to  God,  is  an  inward  an- 
swer, and  means  the  baptized  person's  sincere 
persuasion  of  the  things  which,  by  submitting 
to  baptism  he  professes  to  believe;  namely, 
that  Jesus — arose  from  the  dead,  and  that  at 
the  last  day  he  will  raise  all  from  the  dead  to 
eternal  life  who  sincerely  obey  him."  Apost. 
Epist.  Note  in  loc. 

Dr.  Benson  observes,  "  By  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ."  "As  the  last  sentence  was  con- 
tained in  a  parenthesis,  we  may  join  this  to 
what  goes  before  it,  and  read  thus: — baptism 
doth  now  save  us — by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  He  had  observed,  verse  18,  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  brought  to  life  again  by  the  Spirit ; 
and  he  seems  here  to  refer  to  what  he  had  said 
there.  If  Christ  had  not  risen  he  could  never 
have  raised  the  dead."  Notes  on  loc. 


ADDENDUM. 


219 


Addendum. 

SO  SHALL  HE  SPRINKLE  MANY  NATIONS.    Isa.  til,   15. 

Inasmuch  as  some  of  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren, driven,  as  it  might  seem,  to  the  last 
extremity  for  argument  in  favour  of  sprinkling, 
have  resorted  to  this  text,  to  sustain  them  in 
their  unhappy  position,  it  may  be  expected 
that  I  should  not  pass  it  over  in  silence.  I  will 
only  say  that  it  has  not  even  the  most  remote 
reference  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  In  this  I  am 
supported  by  Pedobaptists  themselves.  I  will 
cite  but  one. 

Rev.  A.  Barnes,  of  the  First  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Philadelphia,  says  :  "  It  furnishes  no 
argument  for  the  practice  of  sprinkling  in  bap- 
tism. It  refers  to  the  fact  of  his  (Christ's)  puri- 
fying or  cleansing  the  nations,  and  not  to  the  or- 
dinance of  Christian  baptism.  Nor  should  it  be 
used  as  an  argument  in  reference  to  the  mode 
in  which  that  should  be  administered."  In  loc. 

Let  a  Quaker's  testimony  be  heard  and  heed- 
ed. "  What  has  been  said  respecting  water 
baptism,  is  intended  to  apply  to  it  as  it  was 
originally  administered  by  immersion,  and  in 
which  manner,  I  conceive,  if  it  be  of  religious 
obligation,  it  can  only  be  rightly  administered. 

"But,  it  is  a  singular  fact,  that  the  greater 
number  of  the  advocates  for  water  bap- 
tism, and  those  who  are  most  apt  to  reflect 


220 


ADDENDUM. 


on  us  for  laying  it  aside,  never  practice  it 
themselves;  but  have  substituted  for  it  the 
sprinkling  of  a  little  water  in  the  face  of 
the  person  pretended  to  be  baptized;  and 
this  they  apply  to  infants  more  than  to  adults. 
Now  this,  I  think,  may  with  confidence  be  as- 
serted, that  the  sprinkling  of  infants  is  a  cere- 
mony which  has  neither  precept  nor  example 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  all  the  arguments  for 
it  being  drawn  from  equivocal  suppositions. 

"  For  any,  therefore,  to  censure  us  for  the 
disuse  of  water  baptism,  who  have  themselves 
laid  aside  the  use  of  it,  and  substituted  some- 
thing else  in  its  stead,  is  not  a  little  extraor- 
dinary." So  writes  Henry  Tuke,  a  distinguish- 
ed writer  among  the  Quakers.  See  a  work  of 
his  (London  edition,  printed  in  1805)  entitled, 
"  The  Principles  of  Religion,  as  professed  by 
the  Society  of  Christians,  usually  called  Qua- 
kers." 

In  conclusion,  suffer  me  to  remark,  upon  a 
few  particulars,  in  a  practical  way,  touching 
this  protracted  examination. 

1.  It  is  matter  of  devout  gratitude  to  God, 
as  well  as  of  pure  congratulation  to  man,  that 
the  Most  High  has  graciously  condescended  to 
grant  us  a  revelation  of  his  will.  Nor  is  it  less 
a  cause  of  thanksgiving,  that  communications 
so  important  are  given  into  our  hands  under 
the  tuition  of  the  Divine  Spirit;  to  whom  the 
most  secret  want,  as  well  as  the  most  hidden 
dangers,  incident  to  our  present  state,  are  dis- 


ADDENDUM.  221 

tinctly  known,  and  to  which  these  heavenly 
instructions  are  wisely  adapted. 

2.  We  should  all  receive  this  directory  from 
the  Court  of  Heaven,  as  our  only  sufficient 
guide  in  all  matters  of  religion,  and  not  only 
be  willing,  but  actually  divest  ourselves  of  every 
practice  for  which  we  have  not  a  thus  saith  the 
Lord. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  there  is  occasion  for 
the  deepest  lamentation,  because  of  the  evident 
desire,  on  the  part  of  some,  to  sustain  certain 
opinions,  as  ordinances  of  divine  worship, 
which  have  no  better  foundation  than  tradition, 
the  best  of  which  goes  no  farther  back  than  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century.  Opinions 
standing  in  fearful  contrast  with  the  word  of 
God,  and  supported  by  no  more  worthy  argu- 
ments than  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
are  supported.  Opinions,  coming  as  they  do 
in  the  place  of  the  commands  of  God,  must 
forever  keep  the  Christian  church  divided,  and 
in  a  far  more  militant  condition,  than  she  would 
otherwise  be.  For  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
sprinkling,  for  baptism  ;  infants,  for  subjects  ; 
and  religion  established  by  law,  have  been  the 
cause  of  more  contention,  persecution,  blood- 
shed, and  general  unhappiness  among  men, 
than  most  other  causes  put  together.  This 
truth,  though  a  sorrowful  one,  is  nevertheless 
indisputable.  History  bears  me  out  in  what  I 
say.  The  church,  established  by  law  and  re- 
plenished by  all  the  infant  seed  of  her  mem- 

19* 


222 


ADDENDUM. 


bers  growing  up  in  sin,  has  been  the  prolific 
source  of  more  cruelty  and  bloodshed,  than 
even  the  ambition  of  men,  not  connected  with 
the  church. 

The  Christian  Church,  designed  to  bless,  has 
by  usurpation  and  perversion  tended  to  curse. 
This  same  spirit  has  marked,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  the  progress  of  sprinkling,  and  in- 
fant baptism,  in  every  land,  not  omitting  ours, 
so  highly  favoured  and  blessed.  As  proof  of 
this,  we  have  only  to  turn  to  the  times  when 
the  puritans  landed  upon  our  shores,  and  the 
long  and  diligent  attempts  they  made  to  esta- 
blish in  this  country  a  religion  by  force. 
Making  it  the  duty  of  all  men  to  put  their 
necks  under  their  yoke,  so  galling  to  the  con- 
sciences of  those,  who,  adhering  steadfastly  to 
the  Bible,  rejected  alike,  sprinkling,  infant  bap- 
tism, and  a  religion  established  by  law. 

Still  later  proof  we  have  of  the  existence  of 
the  same  spirit,  as  evinced  by  the  American 
Bible  Society,  which,  with  a  sweeping  stroke, 
cut  the  Baptist  denomination  off  from  that  body 
unless  they  would  give  to  the  heathen  the  Bible 
so  translated  as  should  favour  sprinkling  for 
baptism,  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  and 
other  such  things.  Yes,  while  1  am  here  speak- 
ing, the  blessed  Oncken,  of  Hamburg,  Ger- 
many, lies  incarcerated  in  a  prison,  for  no 
other  reason  than  immersing  the  humble  be- 
liever in  Jesus,  and  refusing  to  apply  the  rite 
to  infants. 


ADDEDNUM. 


223 


4.  Notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  to  the  con- 
trary, and  the  reproachful  epithets  that  have 
been  heaped,  with  an  unsparing  hand,  upon  the 
Baptists,  and  the  Bible  truths  which  they  teach 
and  practice,  yet  they  live,  and  have,  under 
the  divine  blessing,  increased  to  a  great  multi- 
tude. Their  numbers  have  been  augmented 
by  the  very  frequent  accessions  of  many  from 
Pedobaptist  churches,  who,  from  a  conscien- 
tious sense  of  their  duty  to  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  and  to  the  truths  which  it  contains,  and 
to  the  church,  and  the  souls  of  men,  have 
corne  forward  and  followed  the  footsteps  of  the 
Saviour.* 

Hitherto  God  has  helped  us,  or  we  had  been 
like  the  chaff  of  the  summer's  threshing  floor. 
Brethren,  we  owe  to  the  God  of  Providence, 
to  the  present  and  all  future  generations,  the 
most  ardent  devotedness  in  the  service  of  our 
ascended  Lord,  for  he  has  done  great  things 
for  us. 

5.  Once  more,  my  brethren,  I  have  a  word 
particularly  for  you.  That  you  have  the 
truth  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 
You  have  kept  the  ordinances  as  they  were 


*  "A  Baptist  minister  of  Western  Virginia,  within  the 
last  four  years,  has  baptized  over  200  persons,  who  had 
already  been  members  of  Pedobaptist  churches.  An  aged 
minister  now  residing"  in  Mississippi,  has,  at  various  times, 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  more  than  four  hundred 
persons  of  this  class,  of  whom  forty  were  Pedobaptist 
ministers."  Jewett,  p.  122. 


224  ADDENDUM. 

delivered  to  the  church  at  the  first.  But 
you  look  about  you  and  you  see,  and  at 
times  are  made  to  feel,  that  others  hold  views 
very  dissimilar  to  those  entertained  by  your- 
selves, and  unlike  anything  taught  in  the  Bible. 
Towards  these  your  duty  is  plain.  You  are 
at  all  times,  to  treat  them  with  Christian  fideli- 
ty and  fraternal  respect.  Your  duty  to  your 
God  and  Saviour,  and  to  them,  as  well  as  to 
the  world  in  general,  will  not  suffer  you  to  sac- 
rifice the  truth  of  the  Bible  for  any  considera- 
tion whatever,  nor  will  the  spirit  of  the  religion 
you  profess,  allow  you,  on  any  occasion,  to 
exhibit  towards  your  Pedobaptist  brethren  any- 
thing but  the  spirit  of  kindness.  It  is  yours  to 
do  them  good,  let  it  not  be  said  at  the  last  that 
you  have  withheld  that  good. 


THE    DOCTRINE 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 


PART     II. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Acts  viii.  36,  37.  "  And  the  Eunuch  said,  See,  here  is 
water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  And  Philip 
said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 

Section  I. 


PRELIMINARY    OBSERVATIONS    RESPECTING    UNION    AMONG 
CHRISTIANS. 

It  will  not,  I  trust,  be  deemed  presumptuous 
in  me  to  express  my  very  sincere  regret,  that 
there  should  be  any  occasion  in  this  enlightened 
age,  to  come  forth  a  second  time  in  defence  of 
any  of  the  first  principles  of  the  Gospel,  and 
especially  of  the  sacred  and  spiritual  nature  of 
the  Christian  Church. 


226 


CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP. 


It  might  seem,  favoured  as  we  are  with 
every  facility  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the 
principles  of  Biblical  interpretation,  that  there 
need  be  no  dissension  among  the  pious  follow- 
ers of  the  Lamb  of  God,  respecting  his  own  In- 
stitutions. And  I  can  but  hope,  that  the  time 
is  not  far  distant,  when  all  the  children  of  the 
Heavenly  King  shall  see  his  commands  alike, 
and  yield  them  a  cheerful  and  willing  obe- 
dience. 

I  wish  here  solemnly  to  record,  as  the  settled 
conviction  of  my  own  mind,  that,  were  Chris- 
tians to  put  off  that  importance  which  they  have 
assumed,  divest  themselves  of  preconceived 
opinions,  and  all  prejudice,  and  then  choose 
with  Mary  "  the  good  part,  to  sit  at  Jesus'  feet 
and  hear  his  words,"  with  the  pious  intent  to 
carry  out  into  practice  what  they  shall  learn  of 
Christ,  and  be  satisfied  with  his  instructions, 
the  main  causes  which  now  afflict  our  beloved 
Zion,  and  divide  her  into  separate  sections, 
would  speedily  disappear.  Then  the  different 
portions  of  the  Christian  Church  would  come 
together  in  pristine  order,  cemented  by  a  unity 
of  sentiment  and  fraternal  regard.  Then 
would  "  they  continue  steadfastly  in  the  Apos- 
tles doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking 
of  bread,  and  in  prayers.  And  the  Lord  would 
add  to  the  Church  daily  such  as  shall  be  saved." 

Who  can  fail  to  see  the  desirableness  of  such 
endeared  "felloirship"  among  Christians,  as 
that  embased  upon  the  "  Apostles'  doctrine  ?"  A 


CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP. 


227 


fellowship  commending  itself  to  our  regard  by 
the  triumphant  consideration,  that  the  Church 
when  possessing  it,  shall  throw  off  the  reproach- 
cast  upon  her  divided  state,  and  "  putting  on 
her  beautiful  garment,"  shall  sing  with  the 
pious  Psalmist,  "  Behold,  how  good  and  how 
pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together 
in  unity.  It  is '  as  the  dew  of  Herman,  and 
as  the  dew  that  descended  upon  the  moun- 
tains of  Zion ;  for  there  the  Lord  commanded 
the  blessing,  even  life  for  evermore."  Then 
shall  the  Church  be  like  to  a  city  upon  a  hill, 
which  cannot  be  hid.  She  shall  look  forth  as 
the  morning,  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the 
sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners." 
Such,  my  brethren,  is  the  future  glory  of  the 
Church,  when  truth  shall  universally  prevail. 

The  time  will  come,  and  may  it  speed  its 
course,  when  upon  the  unfurled  banner  of  the 
Church  shall  be  written  a  second  time,  in  liv- 
ing characters,  her  rightful  motto,  "  One  body 
and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope 
of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 
tism." Till  then  let  us  not  cease  to  pray  and 
labour  for  this  union. 


228  THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY. 

Section  II. 

THE  VISIBLE  CHURCH  SHOULD  EVER  BE  WHAT  SHE  WAS  IN 
THE  DAYS  OF  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES,  AND  WHAT 
SHE  WAS  DESIGNED  EVER  TO  BE,  A  TRULY  SPIRITUAL 
BODY,  COMPOSED  EXCLUSIVELY  OF  THOSE  WHO  GIVE 
EVIDENCE  OF  PERSONAL  PIETY. 

At  this  stage  of  our  examination,  it  well  be- 
comes us  to  inquire  respecting  the  proper  Scrip- 
tural subjects  of  baptism  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
respecting  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

There  are  few  subjects  in  the  whole  range 
of  theological  investigation,  which  yield  to  this 
in  point  of  importance  ;  especially  so,  when  we 
take  into  account  what  the  Church  is  capable 
of  effecting.  She  is  an  engine  of  no  ordinary 
power.  She  ever  has  been,  since  the  days  of  her 
first  organization,  under  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist,  and  ever  will  be  made  instrumental  in 
promoting  the  veal  or  icoe  of  the  family  of  man. 
The  great  Captain  of  our  Salvation  designed 
His  Church  to  be  one  of  the  richest  sources  of 
blessing  to  the  world.  Separate  her  from  hu- 
man policy,  and  govern  her  only  by  those  pure 
laws,  devised  by  Infinite  Wisdom,  and  she  can- 
not fail  of  accomplishing  all  contemplated  in 
the  design  of  her  formation.  But,  Oh,  how 
often  does  it  happen,  that  men  pervert  what 
God  has  created  for  our  good  ?  The  Church 
designed,  and  happily  adapted  to  bless  and  save 


THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY.  229 

our  ruined  race,  has,  in  some  instances,  by- 
designing  men,  been  made  the  engine  of  cruelty, 
persecution,  and  death  !  Christ  designed  that 
his  Church  should  be  spiritual  and  holy,  men 
would  make  her  secular ;  Christ  formed  her  a 
religious  body,  men  form  her  a  political  society ; 
Christ  designed  that  she  should  be  composed 
of  such  only  as  are  experimentally  acquainted 
with  himself;  he  says,  speaking  of  those  in 
his  Church  on  earth,  "  all  shall  know  me  from 
the  least  to  the  greatest;"  but  men,  disregard- 
ing the  wisdom  of  God,  have  opened  the 
doors  of  the  Church  to  the  infant  of  days,  and 
the  man  of  years,  who  know  not,  nor  love,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  These  things  ought  not  so 
to  be.  It  is  time  that  such  sorrowful  depar- 
tures from  primitive  order  should  be  rectified. 
Well  has  the  learned  Cassander  remarked,  that 
"  Ecclesiastics  should  set  themselves  to  correct 
manifest  abuses,  according  to  the  rule  of  divine 
Scriptures,  and  the  primitive  Church,  from 
which  they  have  swerved." 

Let  such  manifest  abuses  be  corrected  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  Scripture  ;  let  the  Church 
be  continually  held  to  view,  as  not  of  this  world, 
but  as  chosen  out  of  the  world ;  let  her  be  go- 
verned by  those  principles  of  equity  and  truth 
which  are  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  she  shall  confer  infinite  blessings  upon  our 
fallen  race.  Let  the  Church  be  as  Christ  or- 
dained her,  and  as  the  Apostles  guided  her, 
and  she  shall  do  more,  infinitely  more,  than 
20 


230  THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY. 

was  ever  supposed  Archimedes  might  accom- 
plish, had  he  a  support  by  which  to  sustain  a 
lever.  Then  the  famed  Atlas  could  not  so  effec- 
tually bear  up  the  earth,  as  she.  Put  into  her 
hand  only  the  sabre  of  truth — the  sword  of 
the  Spirit;  marshal  for  her  hosts  only  the  pure 
in  heart;  bring  to  her  institutions  none  but  the 
penitent  and  the  believing,  and  she  shall  more 
than  bear  up  the  pillars  of  the  moral  world ; 
she  shall  revert  the  world,  form  it  into  another 
delightful  Eden,  and  make  it  the  Paradise  of 
God. 

Give  me  your  attention  then,  while  we  weigh, 
as  in  the  balance  of  the  sanctuary,  the  sentiment 
that  believers,  and  believers  only,  have  a  right 
to  the  ordinances  of  the  visible  Church. 

You  are  perfectly  aware,  my  friends,  that 
this  is  a  sentiment  which  has  been  warmly  op- 
posed, especially  for  some  ten  or  twelve  hun- 
dred years  ;  nevertheless,  like  the  burning  bush 
which  Moses  saw,  it  is  not  consumed.  Like 
the  Hebrew  worthies,  "  who  were  cast  into  the 
midst  of  the  burning,  fiery  furnace,"  it  still 
lives;  and  at  no  period  of  its  vehement  oppo- 
sition, has  it  won  such  signal  conquests,  as  in 
later  years.  It  is  one  of  those  inherent  prin- 
ciples in  the  Christian  system,  which  is  destined 
to  outlive  the  power  of  contradiction  and  arti- 
fice employed  against  it. 

There  are  certain  truths  in  the  Bible,  which 
are  above  the  power  of  man  to  destroy.  Among 
these  is  the  one  in  question — that  the  Church 


THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY.  231 

of  onr  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  first  constituted, 
and  during  the  times  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles, 
was  composed  exclusively  of  suck  as  believed  in 
the  beloved  Son  of  God,  and  were  renewed 
in  the  spirit  of  their  minds. 

None,  except  they  appeared  to  possess  these 
important  qualifications,  were  admitted  to  the 
Church,  or  to  her  institutions.  She  was  then 
a  spiritual  body,  offering  up  spiritual  sacrifices 
to  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

Hence  the  Apostle's  appropriate  address,  so 
highly  descriptive  of  the  Church  as  she  then 
was. 

"  Unto  the  Church  of  God,  which  is  at 
Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ 
Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord."    (1  Cor.  i.  2.) 

In  perfect  keeping  with  this  beautiful  and 
just  description  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
Church,  another  Apostle,  when  inquired  of, 
by  a  certain  nobleman,  what  hindered  him 
from  being  baptized,  replied,  "  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  may  est"  Faith  was 
demanded  before  baptism. 

If  we  go  back  to  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist,  "  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  we  shall  find  that  the 
admission  of  believers  only  to  baptism,  was  a 
fundamental  principle,  from  which  the  Baptist 
then,  as  his  descendants  now,  felt  himself  not 
at  liberty  to  depart. 


232  THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY. 

Many  of  the  Jews,  who  came  to  him  to  be 
baptized,  instituted  the  very  plausible  plea,  which 
is  now  urged  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  that 
they  should  be  admitted  to  this  New  Institution, 
on  the  ground  of  their  being  the  children  of 
faithful  Abraham.  But  the  Baptist  rejected 
their  visionary  plea  with  a  most  solemn  rebuke, 
while  at  the  same  time  he  informed  them  what 
was  indispensably  prerequisite  to  baptism. 

John,  with  his  accustomed  integrity,  was 
not  moved  by  the  plausibility  of  their  claim. 
The  very  comprehensive  demand  which  he 
made  of  them  was,  "  Bring  forth  fruits  meet  for 
repentance,  and  think  not  to  say  within  your- 
selves, we  have  Abraham  for  our  Father." 

Now  the  very  principle  upon  which  John 
the  Baptist  acted,  in  rejecting  these  children  of 
Abraham,  who  gave  no  evidence  of  faith  in 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  uniformly  maintained 
throughout  the  New  Testament.  Not  an  in- 
stance is  to  be  found,  during  the  ministry  of 
our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  where  it  receives 
the  least  infringement.  Every  where  do  they 
require  what  is  equivalent  to  that  which  John 
required. 

Indeed,  the  explanations  of  the  nature  of 
the  Christian  religion,  as  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  qualifications  required  of 
those  admitted  to  her  institutions  are  so  full 
and  explicit,  that  it  might  seem  scarcely  pos- 
sible for  any,  professing  to  make  the  doctrines 
and  example  of  Christ  the  rule  of  their  faith 


THE  CHURCII  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY.  ggg 

and  practice,  to  be  mistaken.  The  records  of 
the  ancient  Church  are  most  expressive  on  this 
point.  They  show  distinctly  who  they  were 
that  found  admission  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism in  the  times  of  the  Apostles. 

"  Many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing,  believed, 
and  were  baptized."  Acts  xviii.  8.  "  They 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized." 
Acts  ii.  41. 

"  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  1  If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 
"Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  well  as  we  ?"  Acts  x.  47. 

"  But  wThen  they  believed  Philip  preaching 
the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized, 
both  men  and  women."    Acts  viii.  12. 

Now,  if  you  desire  to  imbibe  the  spirit,  fol- 
low the  commands,  and  imitate  the  example  of 
your  Saviour,  as  well  as  1o  be  true  to  your 
own  conscience,  and  faithful  to  your  God, 
you  will  yield  an  implicit  confidence  to  these 
plain  instructions  of  the  Spirit,  without  seeking 
to  find  something  to  contradict  them. 

These  Scriptures  must  satisfy  every  candid 
and  unprejudiced  mind,  that  the  primitive 
Church  received  to  her  bosom  believers,  only 
admitted  on  profession  of  their  individual  faith. 
She  was  then,  it  is  true,  as  now,  liable  to  be 
mistaken.  She  had  not  the  power  of  looking 
into  the  heart  and  detecting  what  is  in  man. 
20* 


234  THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY. 

This  prerogative  the  Saviour  has  reserved  to 
himself.     He  alone  can  "  search  the  heart." 

Even  the  inspired  Apostles,  with  all  their 
rare  and  unearthly  endowments,  were  not 
able  to  know  the  hearts  of  others,  only  as  mani- 
fested by  their  fruits. 

A  Judas  Iscariot  could  deceive  John  the 
Baptist;  and  a  Simon  Magus  could  deceive 
Philip  and  other  Apostles.  But  neither  Judas 
nor  Simon  was  admitted  to  the  baptismal  rite, 
only  as  they  professed  to  believe  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  showed  signs  of  penitential  sor- 
row for  their  sins. 

Persons  may  and  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  the  Saviour's  death,  in  bap- 
tism, who  were  not  dead  to  sin,  nor  alive  to 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  just  as  it 
happens  sometimes,  that  persons  are  buried 
alive,  who  were  thought  to  be  dead.  But  it 
would  be  strange  logic,  indeed,  for  one  to  reason 
that  as  some  have  been  buried  alive,  others 
ought  to  be.  No  less  strange  is  it  to  argue, 
that,  as  some  have  been  baptized  who,  in  after 
life,  gave  no  proof  of  their  conversion  to  God, 
others  ought  to  be  baptized  who  profess  no 
conversion.  No !  we  ought  to  bury  none  but 
the  dead;  we  ought  to  baptize  none  but  the 
converted — the  pious. 

The  liability  there  is  of  being  deceived,  so 
far  from  prevailing  with  the  Church  to  throw 
open  her  doors  to  the  admission  of  any  class  of 
unbelievers,   whether   old   or    young,    should 


THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY.  335 

awaken  in  her  the  greater  vigilance,  that,  if 
possible,  none  may  be  added,  only  "  such  as 
shall  be  saved."  Is  the  sanctity  of  the  Church 
to  be  invaded  by  hearts  yet  unsubdued  by  the 
grace  of  God  ?  then  should  she  guard  the  way 
into  her  bosom  with  the  more  careful  exactness. 

Even  a  nobleman  is  not  to  be  received  to  her 
institutions  unless  he  believes  with  all  his  heart 
The  children  of  the  faithful  Abraham,  must 
show  signs  worthy  of  repentance,  All  in  the 
Church  must  know  the  Saviour  by  happy  ex- 
perience, from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  Heb. 
viii.  11. 

The  infants  of  believing  parents,  and  the 
infants  of  unbelieving  parents,  are  alike  un- 
scriptural  subjects  for  the  rite  of  baptism. 

They  may  not  be  admitted  into  the  visible 
church  only  when  come  to  years  of  understand- 
ing, and  having  embraced  the  Saviour  with  a 
sincere  and  pure  faith.  Then  with  inexpressi- 
ble delight,  do  we  welcome  their  accession  to 
the  fold  of  the  Lamb  of  God — the  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  their  souls. 

Josephus,  a  Jew,  and  therefore  a  perfectly 
disinterested  and  impartial  witness,  bears  the 
most  decisive  testimony,  as  to  the  character 
of  those  whom  John  admitted  to  the  rite  of 
baptism.  He  says:  "Herod  slew  him,  (John) 
who  was  a  good  man,  and  commanded  the 
Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteous- 
ness towards  one  another,  and  piety  towards 
God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism.  Antiquities 
B.  xviii.  c.  5.  §  2. 


236  THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY. 

Eusebius  is  no  less  distinct  in  giving  to  the 
Apostolic  church  the  character  of  a  spiritual 
body,  requiring  faith  and  confession  of  sin  be- 
fore baptism.  He  says :  Novatus,  "  who 
aided  by  the  exorcists,  when  attacked  with 
an  obstinate  disease,  and  being  supposed  at 
the  point  of  death,  was  baptized  by  aspersion, 
in  the  bed  on  which  he  lay,  if  indeed  it  be 
proper  to  say  that  one  like  him  did  receive 
baptism."  "  We  justly  cherish  an  aversion 
to  Novation,  by  whom  the  church  is  split 
asunder, — which    also    beside    all    this,   sets 

ASIDE    THE    HOLY    BAPTISM,    and     OVERTURNS    the 

faith  and  confession  that  precede  it."  Eu- 
sebius Eccl.  His.  B.  vi.  c.  43.    B.  vii.  c.  8. 

Such,  my  brethren,  was  the  church  in  her 
earliest  times,  when  watched  over  and  guarded 
by  the  holy  Apostles.  And  such  was  she  ever 
designed  to  be.  The  Baptists,  in  every  age 
from  the  Apostles  till  now,  have  claimed  such 
a  character  for  the  church  of  Christ.  They 
have  contended  earnestly  for  this  part  of  the 
Christian  faith.  They  conceive  that  the 
church  should  be  a  spiritual  body,  a  holy 
priesthood,  a  peculiar  people. 

But  our  brethren  of  other  denominations 
differ  with  us,  and  suppose  the  church  to  be 
more  secular  in  her  nature ;  open  to  the  ad- 
mission of  a  certain  class  who  do  not  believe 
in  Christ. 

Some  suppose  that  all  the  qualification  ne- 
cessary to  church  membership  consists  in  the 


THE  CHURCH  A  SPIRITUAL  BODY.  237 

ability  to  repeat  the  catechism  to  the  priest, 
without  the  considerations  of  personal  reli- 
gion. 

Others  think  that  we  are  born  to  this  inhe- 
ritance, and  hold  our  membership  in  the  light 
of  a  birthright.  While  others,  again,  suppose 
and  warmly  contend  that  infants  may  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  visible  church,  by  baptism  on 
the  faith  of  their  parents,  or  sponsors  acting 
as  godfathers  and  godmothers.  Dr.  Miller 
says:  "The  main  principle  of  the  Pedobaptist 
system  is,  that  in  every  case  of  infant  baptism 
faith  is  required.  But  it  is  required  of  the 
parents,  not  of  the  children."     P.  54. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  says:  "  They,''  infants,  "are 
part  of  their  parents;  and,  therefore,  to  be 
brought  under  the  same  bond.  So  I  would 
answer  a  Baptist;  'I  baptize  my  child,  be- 
cause I  am  baptized  myself.'"  His  Works, 
Vol.  vi.  p.  403. 

But  while  we  respect  both  the  learning  and 
piety  of  many  of  those  who  differ  with  us, 
upon  these  points,  we  are  constrained  by  the 
word  of  God,  and  the  dearest  interests  of  the 
souls  of  men,  to  reject  opinions  so  at  va- 
riance with  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  so  vastly  inharmonious  with 
the  entire  and  uniform  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  of  the  church  for  the  two  first  centu- 
ries of  her  existence. 


238  N0  BIBLE  F0R  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  MOST  POPULAR  ARGUMENTS,  UPON  WHICH  OUR 
PEDOBAPTIST  BRETHREN  REST  THE  VALIDITY 
OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Section  I. 

THE  VALIDITY  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  URGED  AND 
THOUGHT  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED,  ON  THE  GROUND  OF 
ITS  BEING  TAKEN  FOR  GRANTED,  WITHOUT  ANY 
EXPRESS    COMMAND    IN   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

We  commence  this  examination  under  very- 
singular  circumstances.  Circumstances  which 
ought  to  awaken  surprise  in  every  intelligent 
mind. 

For  in  the  first  place,  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren have  been  constrained  to  acknowledge 
that  there  is  neither  precept  nor  command, 
nor  yet  example,  for  infant  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Bible. 

We  might  suppose,  after  so  just  a  conces- 
sion, that  no  further  attempt  would  be  made 
to  keep  alive  a  custom,  which,  more  than  any- 
other,  has  afflicted  and  divided  the  Christian 
church.  Why  should  we  not  relinquish  any 
and  every  practice,  as  of  divine  authority, 
which  we  cannot  support  by  plain  and  une- 
quivocal passages  from  our  holy  writings. 


NO   BIBLE  FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM.  339 

To  the  honour  of  Christ,  and  for  the  peace 
of  our  beloved  Zion,  we  ought  ta  bring  a 
"  thus  saith  the  Lord"  to  every  part  of  in- 
stituted worship.  And  be  enabled  to  say, 
"This  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  commanded 
to  be  done."     Lev.  viii.  5. 

But  it  has  been  the  extreme  infelicity  of  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren,  after  the  most  laborious 
study  and  even  speculative  criticism,  utterly 
to  fail  of  producing  one  single  command  or 
example,  to  justify  the  application  of  the  rite 
of  baptism  to  infants.  One  might,  in  all  cha- 
rity, conclude  that  after  so  splendid  a  failure, 
they  would  for  ever  abandon  the  hope  of  fix- 
ing upon  infant  baptis/n  the  seal  of  divine 
appointment. 

But  as  strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  va- 
lidity of  infant  baptism  is  urged  on  the  very 
ground  that  Baptists  reject  it.  We  reject  it 
because  not  commanded  in  the  Bible.  They 
hold  to  it  because  not  commanded,  but  taken 
for  granted  ! 

In  meeting  the  objection  which  Baptists 
prefer  against  infant  baptism,  in  that  it  has  no 
scriptural  warrant,  one  of  the  popular  Pedo- 
baptist writers  very  ingeniously  observes,  "  If 
it  be  as  they,"  the  Baptists,  "say,  that  the 
New  Testament  is  silent  on  the  subject,  this 
very  silence  is  quite  sufficient  to  destroy  their 
cause,  and  to  establish  ours"  The  silence  of 
the  New  Testament  quite  sufficient  to  esta- 
blish infant  baptism  !  !  !    How  strangely  do 


240  N0  BTBLE  F0R  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

men  reason  when  they  want  for  solid  and  sub- 
stantial testimony  !  Who  could  have  thought 
that  a  doctor  of  divinity  should  have,  at  this 
enlightened  day,  employed  logic  so  singularly 
strange,  and  at  war  with  every  acknowledged 
principle  of  correct  reasoning  ! ! 

One  cannot  but  regret,  that  any  man,  and 
especially  a  professor  in  an  institution  where 
young  men  are  being  trained  for  the  Christian 
ministry,  should  have  thus  laid  himself  open 
to  the  rebuke  of  some  of  the  first  principles  in 
the  science  of  biblical  interpretation. 

Plead  the  validity  of  a  practice  on  the 
ground  of  the  entire  silence  of  Scripture ! ! ! 
What  a  principle  this  for  Protestants  of  the 
nineteenth  century!!  Might  we  not  have 
judged,  without  betraying  a  want  of  Christian 
charity,  that  the  silence  of  Christ  and  the 
Jlpostles  is  a  quite  sufficient  reason  tohy 
those  of  later  times  should  be  silent? 

Will  not  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  review 
this  part  of  their  testimony,  and  put  away  a 
practice  for  which  they  have  no  divine  grant? 
Shall  the  absence  of  all  evidence  be  made  the 
best  of  evidence?  What  must  you  think,  if 
accused  of  crime,  and  when  on  trial,  your  ac- 
cuser fails  to  bring  forward  any  testimony  to 
substantiate  the  charge ;  yet  the  court  over- 
ruled and  condemned  you,  because  there  is 
no  evidence  against  you?  Making  the  en- 
tire absence  of  all  testimony  against  you 
quite  sufficient  to  establish  the  groundless 
charge  ! !  ! 


NO  BIBLE  FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM.  241 

To  what  a  pass  have  we  come  in  logic,  re- 
ligion, and  laws,  when  the  civilian,  the  divine, 
and  the  logician  all  concur  with  a  jury  of  their 
own  selection,  in  giving  a  verdict  against  the 
innocent,  on  the  very  ground  that  there  is 
no  proof  which  can  be  made  to  bear  against 
him!  Should  the  unoffending  man  complain 
of  a  verdict  so  manifestly  absurd,  and  attempt 
to  defend  himself,  he  is  answered  by  the 
court,  "If  it  be  as  you  say,  that  no  testimony 
has  been  adduced  against  you  in  the  case, 
this  very  silence  of  all  testimony  is  quite 
sufficient  to  condemn  you." 

And  yet  this  is  precisely  the  kind  of  argu- 
ment which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  employ 
in  justification  of  infant  baptism.  No  express 
warrant  for  it,  "but  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
without  an  explicit  enactment." 

Another  of  the  same  class  of  divines,  to 
whose  name  is  appended  the  weighty  respon- 
sibility of  D.  D.,  remarks,  "If  in  the  record  of 
the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  some  of 
its  original  circumstances  be  omitted,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  omission  cannot  render  those 
circumstances  nugatory."  Should  some  one 
have  the  curiosity  to  inquire  respecting  "  ori- 
ginal circumstances,  not  found  in  the  record 
of  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,"  should  he  beg  to  be  informed  how 
any  m;in  knows  any  thing  about  "circum- 
stances" which  the  inspired  penmen  "omit- 
ted" to  mention ;  he  is  answered,  "  it  is  evi- 
21 


242 


NO  BIBLE  FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


dent  that  this  omission  cannot  render  those 
circumstances  nugatory"  Those  omitted 
circumstances  become  v;ilid  on  the  ground  of 
not  having  a  place  in  our  Holy  Bible  !  ! !  Who, 
my  friends,  can  fail  to  see  the  unhappy  ten- 
dency of  such  illogical  argumentation.  My 
heart  sickens  within  me,  while  viewing  how 
error  seeks  to  wear  the  aspect  of  truth.  By 
the  singular  law  of  omission,  any  and  every 
thing  that  a  person  chooses  maybe  elevated  to 
the  dignity  and  value  of  a  thing  divinely  com- 
manded !  In  view  of  such  religious  specula- 
tions, I  may  remark  in  the  language  of  an 
eloquent  writer,  "  We  cannot  sink  too  low  in 
humility,  nor  rise  too  high  in  heavenly  mind- 
edness;  but  we  may  soon  be  lost  in  the  wil- 
derness of  needless  speculation.  If  we  are 
wise  according  as  it  is  written,  we  shall  be 
profitably  wise;  but  if  we  want  to  be  wise 
beyond  what  is  written,  we  shall  smart  for 
our  folly." 

Dr.  Lightfoot  observes:  "The  Anabaptist 
pleads  that  'there  is  no  precept  for  infant  bap- 
tism.' /  say  it  needs  not ;  and  Christ  took 
up  baptism  as  he  found  it.  If  a  law  be 
made  in  these  words,  'Let  all  the  univer- 
sity come  to  St.  Mary's  on  the  Sabbath;'  it 
would  be  madness  hereafter  to  say,  'That 
there  ought  to  be  no  sermons,  there,  because 
there  is  no  mention  of  them  in  the  law  ;'  that 
is  supposed  in  the  law  as  a  thing  common 
and  known.     So  Christ  makes  this  law,  that 


NO  BIBLE  FOR  TNFANT  BAPTISM.  243 

all  nations  should  be  baptized :  he  directs  not 
in  this  law  how  to  baptize,  nor  ivho  to  be 
baptized,  because  that  was  so  well  known  to 
all  already."     His  Works,  Vol.  vi.  pp.  405-6. 

The  cunning  sophistry  of  the  Doctor,  by 
which  he  would  induce  the  partial  observer 
to  believe  in  infant  baptism,  can  easily  be 
made  to  appear.  His  under  current  should 
be  brought  to  the  surface,  and  laid  open  to 
the  inspection  of  all.  Nothing  can  be  further 
necessary  to  show  the  futility  of  infant  bap- 
tism, than  a  mere  statement  of  the  fallacious 
arguments  plead  in  its  favour.  These  argu- 
ments are  here  brought  together  by  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  who  takes  the  following  positions : 
First,  that  infant  baptis?n  needs  no  precept ; 
Second,  That  "Christ  took  up  baptism  as  he 
found  it ;"  Third,  That  the  command  of  our 
Lord  to  his  Apostles  to  "  Go  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
included  infants.  But  who  does  not  see  the 
sophistry  here  employed  to  sustain  a  practice 
for  which  there  is  no  precept?  Since  those 
who  are  to  be  baptized  are  first  to  be  taught. 
And  secondly,  Mark  informs  us  that  not  all 
who  are  taught  are  to  be  baptized,  only  those 
who  are  both  instructed  and  believe. 

The  Doctor's  fourth  position  is,  that  Christ 
in  his  command  "directs  not  how  to  baptize, 
nor  who  to  be  baptized."  Hence  he  infers 
infant  baptism.    As  well  might  he  infer  infidel, 


244  INFANT  BAPTISM  NEITHER 

or  pagan  baptism.  If,  as  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  tell  us,  "Christ  directs  not  who  are 

lo  be  baptized,"  and  hence  infer  infant  bap- 
tism, another  may  infer  idiot  baptism,  and 
lunatic  baptism.  For  the  inference  is  just  as 
satisfactory  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  deplored,  that  any  Chris- 
tian society  should  plead  such  singular  argu- 
ments in  support  of  their  cherished  notions. 
Any  and  every  opinion  which  rests  upon  such 
fallacious  ground  should,  by  Christians,  be  for 
ever  abandoned. 


Section  II. 

THE  VALIDITY  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  PLEAD  FOR  AS  OF 
DIVINE  APPOINTMENT,  BECAUSE  THERE  IS  NO  PROHI- 
BITION   AGAINST    IT. 

And  has  it  come  to  this  ?  Shall  we  hold 
our  peace  and  forbear  uttering  our  decided 
disapprobation  against  innovations  into  the 
Christian  church,  because  they  are  not  for- 
bidden? Shall  we  tamely  submit  to  every 
practice  which  the  ingenuity  of  man  may  in- 
vent, because  not  interdicted  in  the  Bible? 

If  such  testimony  be  allowed  in  matters  of 
religion,  what  may  not  be  imposed  upon  our 
credulity?  Such  principles  of  interpretation 
carried  out,  would  lay  the  broad  foundation 


COMMANDED  NOR  FORBIDDEN. 


245 


for  the  practice  of  the  most  baneful  and  de- 
structive errors,  and  would  open  a  wide  door 
for  every  species  of  superstition  of  which  this 
degenerate  world  is  rife,  together  with  all  that 
the  human  heart  may  yet  invent. 

My  brethren,  the  souls  of  men,  the  honour 
of  the  blessed  Redeemer,  and  the  hopes  of 
posterity  call  upon  us,  as  Christians,  responsi- 
ble for  the  privileges  we  enjoy,  to  meet  such 
arguments  with  a  prompt  and  decided  dis- 
avowal. 

If  we  plead  the  validity  of  any  practice  in 
religion,  on  the  double  ground  that  it  is  nei- 
ther commanded  nor  forbidden,  having  nei- 
ther precept  nor  prohibition,  then  what  may 
we  not  establish  and  introduce  into  the  church 
as  ordinances  of  divine  worship? 

This,  my  friends,  is  taking  sides  with  the 
church  of  Rome.  She  has  long  been  accus- 
tomed to  plead  the  validity  of  her  peculiar 
rites,  on  this  very  ground,  because  they  are 
not  forbidden  in  the  Bible. 

"  Will  they,"  asks  the  distinguished  Mr. 
Baxter,  when  arguing  with  Papists,  "  Will 
they  stand  to  the  validity  of  proofs  from 
Scripture?  No ;  for  they  take  it  to  be  but 
part  of  God\s  word,  so  that  toe  may  not  ar- 
gue negatively,  it  is  not  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures;  therefore,  it  is  not  an  article  of  faith, 
or  a  law  of  God ;  for  they  will  presently  ap- 
peal to  tradition,"  &c.     Jesuit  Juggling,  p.  80. 

And  tradition  they  hold  to  be  proof  positive 
21* 


246 


INFANT  BAPTISM  NEITHER 


when  there  is  no  prohibition  in  the  Bible 
against  the  thing  for  which  tradition  is  plead. 

If  such  reasoning  be  admitted  among  Chris- 
tians, we  shall  have  ample  proof  for  other 
things  which  are  not  forbidden,  as  for  exam- 
ple, the  invocation  of  saints  ;  the  inquisition 
at  Rome;  infant  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table;  infant  marriage;  and  many  other 
things  which  are  quite  as  well  supported  in 
the  word  of  God,  as  infant  baptism. 

By  just  this  kind  of  reasoning  is  a  divine 
warrant  found  for  giving  a  name  in  baptism; 
for  consecrating  the  baptismal  waters ;  for 
anointing  the  person  baptized;  for  sponsors, 
as  godfathers  and  godmothers;  for  baptizing 
children  on  the  faith  of  parents;  for  a  renun- 
ciation of  the  devil  at  baptism,  by  proxy  ;  for 
putting  salt  in  the  baptismal  waters;  for  hav- 
ing others  vow  and  promise  for  us  when  bap- 
tized; for  crossing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross 
the  newly  baptized,  and  such  like. 

These  things,  being  neither  commanded  nor 
forbidden,  are  tenaciously  contended  for  by 
the  same  kind  of  logic  as  is  plead  for  sprink- 
ling and  infant  baptism. 

Their  omission  in  the  divine  record,  it  is 
said,  cannot  render  them  nugatory.  If  the 
Scriptures  are  silent  respecting  them,  this 
very  silence  is  quite  sufficient  to  establish 
and  justify  their  being  observed. 

Well  did  the  great  Mr.  Collins  say,  "  that 
nothing  is  lawful  in  the  worship  of  God  but 


COMMANDED  NOR  FORBIDDEN-  247 

what  we  have  precept  or  precedent  for; 
which  whoso  denies,  opens  a  door  for  all 
idolatry  and  superstition,  and  will-worship  in 
the  world."     Jerubbaal,  p.  487. 

But  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  when  disput- 
ing among  themselves,  as  Protestants  against 
Romanists,  do  not  admit  such  rules  of  in- 
terpretation. Then  they  come  on  consistent 
ground,  and  utterly  reject  the  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  church,  whose  validity  rests  not  upon 
plain  examples,  or  positive  commands. 

Hear  what  the  learned  Dr.  Baxter  says. 

"  What  man  dare  go  in  a  way  which  has 
neither  precept  nor  example  to  warrant  it, 
from  a  way  which  has  a  full  current  of  both? 
Who  knows  what  will  please  God  but  himself? 
and  has  he  not  told  us  what  he  expects  from  us? 
Can  that  be  obedience  which  has  no  command 
for  it?  Is  not  this  to  accuse  God's  ordinances 
of  insufficiency,  as  well  as  his  word,  as  if  they 
were  not  sufficient,  either  to  please  him,  or 
help  our  own  graces?  Oh,  the  pride  of  man's 
heart,  that  instead  of  being  a  law  obeyer,  will 
be  a  law  maker!  For  my  part,  I  will  not 
fear  that  God  will  be  angry  with  me,  for  do- 
ing no  more  than  he  has  commanded  me,  and 
for  sticking  close  to  the  rule  of  his  word  in 
matters  of  worship;  but  I  should  tremble  to 
add  or  diminish. "  Plain  Scrip.  Proof,  p.  24, 
303. 

How  just  and  noble  are  these  sentiments ! 
Worthy,  indeed,  their  distinguished  author.     I 


248  INFANT  BAPTISM,  &c. 

could  wish  they  were  printed  upon  every 
heart.  Only  let  them  have  their  full  influence 
over  us;  let  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  carry 
them  out,  and  apply  them,  when  pleading  for 
infant  baptism,  and  they  will  for  ever  aban- 
don a  practice  for  which  they  have  no  com- 
mand, nor  yet  example. 

But  let  us  see  how  differently  they  argue 
when  attempting  to  justify  infant  baptism. 
Says  a  Pedobaptist  whose  writings  have  ac- 
quired much  popularity  : 

"  /  do  not  pretend  to  ground  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism  on  any  plain  positive 
command.  Baptism  must  not  rest  upon  the 
instructions  of  the  ivord  of  God,  but  upon 
probabilities,  inferences,  human  reasoning, 
and  consequences"  Methodist  Dialogue,  p. 
9—17. 

Says  another,  and  no  less  than  the  distin- 
guished and  eminent  Professor  Stuart,  of  An- 
dover : 

"Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  examples, 
in  the  New  Testament  relative  to  it,"  (infant 
baptism)  "  I  do  not  find." 

And  Dr.  Woods,  an  associate  professor  of 
Dr.  Stuart,  says  : 

"  We  have  no  express  precept  or  example 
for  infant  baptism,  in  all  our  holy  writings." 

Cellarius,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  la- 
borious philologists  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, says:  Infant  baptism  is  neither  com- 
manded in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  nor  is  it 
confirmed  by  apostolic  example." 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  249 

I  might  quote  scores  of  Pedobaptist  authors 
who  concede  the  same  things,  did  I  suppose  it 
necessary.  But  I  will  only  present  you  with 
one  other  example  at  this  time,  where  they 
have  granted  all  that  Baptists  ask  on  this 
point. 

Gesenius,  a  celebrated  orientalist  and  biblical 
critic,  whose  works  have  acquired  for  him  an 
immortal  celebrity,  being  informed  that  Bap- 
tists, in  America,  as  well  as  in  other  countries, 
practice  immersion  only,  and  reject  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  remarked,  "  They  do  right — 
that  is  according  to  the  Bible." 


Section  III. 

TRADITION  IS    A  MAIN    ARGUMENT    URGED    IN   SUPPORT   OF 
INFANT   BAPTISM. 

We  are  told  that  "  The  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  from  the  apostolic  age,  furnishes 
an  argument  of  irresistible  force  in  favour  of 
the  divine  authorify  of  infant  baptism." — 
Miller,  p.  32. 

Now,  while  I  would  not  be  thought  to  want 
proper  respect  for  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers, 
yet  I  dare  not  hold  their  opinions  as  of  divine 
authority;  and  the  more  cautious  ought  we 
to  be  as  to  the  stress  we  repose  on  their 
opinions,  since  scarcely  two  of  them  have  the 
happiness   to   agree.     Nevertheless,   Baptists 


250  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  most  rigid  scru- 
tiny of  the  ancient  Fathers,  on  the  point  of 
baptism,  whether  in  respect  to  the  mode  of  its 
administration,  or  the  proper  subjects  of  the 
holy  rite.  For  a  long  time  after  Christ,  there 
was  not  a  dissenting  voice  ;  yet  we  would  not, 
we  dare  not,  put  human  testimony  on  a  par 
with  the  Inspired  Writings.  That  which  is 
submitted  for  our  belief,  supported  by  no  better 
than  a  mere  traditionary  legend,  ought  not  to 
share  the  confidence  of  Bible  Christians  in  any 
considerable  degree.  Having  no  better  foun- 
dation than  the  best  possible  tradition,  it  ought 
not  to  be  classed  among  the  articles  of  our 
faith,  nor  admitted  as  any  part  of  instituted 
worship  in  the  house  of  God. 

If  Dr.  Miller  holds  to  the  infallibility  of  tradi- 
tion, as  a  rule  to  determine  what  shall  be  re- 
ceived as  a  Divine  institution,  in  common  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  then  he  may  have  some 
show  of  reason  for  his  "  argument  of  irresistible 
force  in  favour  of  the  Divine  authority  of  infant 
baptism."  But  let  us  hold  up  by  the  side  of 
the  good  Dr.  at  Princetoy,  a  noble  champion 
of  the  Protestant  cause,  who,  having  opened 
his  eyes  upon  the  enormities  of  the  established 
Church,  and  the  utter  insufficiency  of  tradition 
to  establish  any  thing  but  error,  remarked, 
"For  my  part,  after  long  and  impartial  search, 
I  profess  plainly  that  I  cannot  find  any  rest  for 
the  sole  of  my  foot,  but  upon  this  rock  only, 
namely,  that  the  Bible,  the  Bible,  I  say  only,  is 
the  religion  of  Protestants.     I  see  plainly,  and 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  251 

with  my  own  eyes,  that  there  are  Popes  against 
Popes,  Councils  against  Councils,  some  Fathers 
against  others,  the  same  Fathers  against  them- 
selves, a  consent  of  Fathers  of  one  age,  against 
a  consent  of  Fathers  of  another  age,  the  Church 
of  one  age  against  the  Church  of  another  age 
— in  a  word,  there  is  no  sufficient  certainty,  but 
of  Scripture  only,  for  any  considering  man  to 
build  upon.  This,  therefore,  and  this  only,  I 
have  reason  to  believe — I  will  take  no  man's 
liberty  of  judgment  from  him,  neither  shall  any 
man  take  mine  from  me.  I  am  sure  that  God 
does  not,  and  therefore  that  man  ought  not  to 
require  any  more  of  any  man  than  this,  to  be- 
lieve the  Scriptures  to  be  God's  Word;  to  en- 
deavour to  find  the  true  sense  of  it,  and  to  live 
according  to  it" — Chillingworth's  Real  Prot., 
chap.  vi.  see.  56,  p.  379. 

And  yet  Pedobaptists  of  America,  after  hav- 
ing conceded  the  point  that  there  is  neither 
command  nor  example  for  infant  baptism  in 
the  Bible,  tell  to  the  world  that  "  the  history  of 
the  Church,  from  the  apostolic  age,  furnishes 
an  argument  of  irresistible  force  in  favour  of 
the  Divine  authority  of  infant  baptism  !  !  !* 

But  let  us  see  what  "  alignments  of  irresisti- 
ble force,"  "favouring  the  Divine  authority  of  in- 
fant baptism,"  can  be  gathered  from  the  history 
of  the  Church  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

*  Cardinal  Bellarmine  says,  "Traditions  are  Divine, 
Apostolical,  and  Ecclesiastical. 

Divine,  are  those  which  were  received  from  Christ  him- 
self teaching  his  Apostles,  and  yet  are  not  to  be  found  in 


252  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

Throughout  the  New  Testament,  and  from 
the  days  of  the  Apostles  till  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  not  a  word  is  said  about  in- 
fant baptism. 

John,  the  last  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  died 
at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  leaving  one 
hundred  years  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles 
to  the  first  mention  whatever  of  infant  baptism. 

During  this  last  hundred  years,  uninspired 
writers  make  frequent  mention  of  the  immersion 
of  believers,  but  never  do  they  mention  a  word 
about  the  baptism  of  infants. 

But  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  find  no  diffl- 

the  Scriptures ;  such  are  those  which  concern  the  matter 
and  form  of  the  sacraments. 

Apostolical,  are  those  which  were  instituted  by  the 
Apostles,  not  without  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  yet  are  not  to  be  found  in  their  Epistles. 

Ecclesiastical  traditions  are  properly  called  certain  old 
customs,  beg-an  either  by  prelates,  or  by  the  people,  which, 
by  little  and  little,  by  tacit  consent  of  the  peopl ,  obtained 
the  power  of  a  law."  Lib.  4,  de  verbo  non  script,  c.  2. 
extat.  torn.  i.  p.  166. 

Under  these  divisions,  especially  the  two  former,  he 
classes  the  following:  "  The  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary; 
the  baptizing-  of  infants;  consecrating"  the  water  in  which 
babes  are  about  to  be  baptized;  bidding*  them  renounce 
Satan  and  his  works;  signing  them  with  the  sign  of  the 
cross;  anointing  them  with  oil;  not  to  re-baptize  after  the 
manner  of  Heretiqucs;  to  observe  Lent;  Ember  week; 
inferior  orders  in  the  Church;  worshipping-  of  images," 
&c— Ibid.  cap.  9. 

To  which  others  add  the  following,  viz.:  "The  oblation 
of  the  sacrament  of  the  altar;  invocation  of  saints;  prayer 
for  the  dead;  the  primacy,  confirmation,  orders,  penance; 
extreme  unction;  merits;  auricular  confession,"  &c. — 
Vid.  Whitaker  de  S.  Script,  conorov.  i.  q.  6.  c.  5. 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  £53 

culty  in  getting  over  this  entire  silence  upon 
this  subject.  They  hold  that  this  very  silence 
is  proof  positive  in  their  favour. 

But  as  they  attach  great  importance  to  the 
history  of  the  Church,  after  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  I  will  now  show  by  their  own  his- 
torians, that  their  history  reaches  no  further 
back  than  about  the  commencement  of  the 
third  century,  at  which  time  infant  baptism  was 
introduced  and  contended  for  by  a  few. 

Curcellaeus  says,  "  Pedobaptism,"  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  "was  unknown  in  the  two  first 
ages  after  Christ ;  in  the  third  and  fourth," 
centuries,  "it  was  approved  of  by  a  few;  at 
length,  in  the  fifth  and  following  ages  it  began 
to  obtain  in  divers  places,  and  therefore  this 
rite  is,  indeed,  observed  by  us  as  an  ancient 
custom,  but  not  as  an  Apostolic  tradition" — 
Westlake,  p.  21.  This  single  quotation  is  suffi- 
cient to  put  to  silence  every  attempt  to  support 
infant  baptism,  as  having  any  existence  before 
the  third  century. 

Yet,  out  of  the  many  who  make  the  same 
concession,  let  me  quote  Bishop  Barlow,  who 
says,  "  I  do  believe  and  know  that  there  is 
neither  precept  nor  example  in  Scripture  for 
pedobaptism,  nor  any  just  evidence  for  it  for 
about  two  hundred  years  after  Christ." — See 
his  Letter  to  J.  Tombs. 

I  am  aware  that  some  have  thought  that 
Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus,  both  of  whom 
suffered  martyrdom,  the  one  in  the  year  167, 


254  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

and  the  other  not  until  202,  had  some  allusion 
to  infant  baptism,  in  their  writings.  But  it  is 
quite  manifest  that  Justin  did  not  mean  infants, 
but  such  children  as  were  capable  of  under- 
standing and  believing  the  Gospel. 

He  spoke  of  children  just  as  Paul  did  in  his 
address  to  Timothy, 2  Tim.  iii.  14,  15.  "From 
a  child  thou  hast  known  the  holy  Scriptures." 
But  to  put  it  beyond  all  doubt  that  he  spoke  of 
children  who  were  capable  of  learning  and  be- 
lieving, I  will  give  you  his  own  words,  which 
are  sufficiently  plain.  They  are  as  follows: 
"Among  those  who  were  members  of  the 
Church,  there  were  many  of  both  sexes,  some 
sixty  and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  were 
made  disciples  to  Christ  from  their  childhood." 
Now  a  disciple  is  a  scholar  or  pupil,  attending 
the  instructions  of  a  teacher. 

To  be  made  the  disciples  of  Christ  is  to  be 
instructed  in  the  way  of  salvation  through 
Christ.     Such  pupils  were  these  children. 

Hence,  I  find  Mr.  Matthies,  in  his  interpre- 
tation of  this  very  passage,  saying,  "These 
words"  of  Justin,  "  mean  simply,  that  ''from 
their  childhood  they  were  instructed  in  religion  ;' 
for,  in  another  place,  speaking  of  the  order  and 
manner  of  baptism,  Justin  Martyr  says,  that 
1  only  those  wlio  believe  what  they  were  taught 
were  baptized.''  From  which  it  appears  that,  in 
Justin's  view,  baptism  was  to  be  given  sub- 
sequently to  faith." 

To  as  little  effect,  do  they  appeal  to  Irenaeus 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  255 

for  proof  that  infant  baptism  existed  before  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century. 

Dr.  Winer,  who  stands  confessedly  eminent, 
both  as  a  scholar  and  critic,  says,  "  Tertullian 
is  the  first  that  mentions  infant  baptism.  Ire- 
naeus  does  not  mention  it,  as  has  been  supposed'9 
Irenaeus  has  not  a  word  respecting  infant  bap- 
tism in  any  part  of  his  writings.  He  speaks  of 
the  regeneration  of  children,  not  of  their  bap- 
tism. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  writer  that  ever  men- 
tions infant  baptism  before  Tertullian,  two 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  at  a  time  when 
many  errors  began  to  be  introduced  into  the 
Church. 

This  is  the  starting  point  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  She  had  her  beginning  in  the  origin 
of  the  following  erroneous  sentiments,  viz., 
prayers  for  the  dead;  union  of  church  and 
state;  baptism  a  saving  ordinance;  infant  bap- 
tism; infant  communion  at  the  Lord's  Table; 
&c.  &c. 

Indeed,  infant  baptism  had  its  origin  in  the 
belief  that  baptism  was  a  saving  ordinance, 
and  that  infants  dying  without  it  would  be  lost. 
Salmasius,  a  very  learned  historian,  says,  "An 
opinion  prevailed  that  no  one  could  be  saved 
without  being  baptized  ;  and  for  that  reason 
the  custom  arose  of  baptizing  infants." — Pengil. 
p.  68.  At  first,  however,  it  was  intended  that 
baptism  should  be  administered  to  such  infants 
only  as  were  sick  and  not  likely  to  recover. 

Among  those  who  embraced  the  dangerous 


256 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF- 


error,  that  baptism  was  a  saving  institution, 
and  washed  away  original  sin,  or  unholiness, 
there  was  a  division.  Some  held  with  Ter- 
tullian, who  dissuaded  the  baptism  of  infants, 
and  advised  that  their  baptism  be  delayed  till 
they  are  grown  up  to  years  of  understanding, 
and  able  to  seek  and  become  Christians.* 

Yes,  Tertullian,  notwithstanding  he  supposed 
there  to  be  something  salutary  in  respect  to  sal- 
vation by  being  baptized,  yet  he  could  by  no 
consideration  whatever  brook  the  idea  of  infant 
baptism.  He  met  this  new  innovation  into  the 
Christian  Church,  with  a  strength  and  con- 
sistency of  argument  that  does  honour  to  him- 
self, and  justice  to  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  But 
others,  who  held  in  common  with  Tertullian 


*  Tertullian  says,  "  The  delay  of  baptism  may  be  more 
advantageous,  either  on  account  of  the  condition,  dispo- 
sition, or  age  of  any  person,  especially  in  reference  to 
little  children.  For  what  necessity  is  there  that  the 
sponsors  should  be  brought  into  danger  ?  because  either 
they  themselves  may  fail  of  the  promises  by  death,  or  be 
deceived  by  the  growth  of  evil  dispositions.  The  Lord, 
indeed,  says,  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to  me.  Let  them, 
therefore,  come  when  they  are  grown  up  ;  when  they  can 
understand ;  when  they  are  taught  whither  they  are  to 
come.  Let  them  become  Christians  when  they  can  know 
Christ.  Why  should  this  innocent  age  hasten  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins?  Men  act  more  cautu  usly  in  worldly 
things;  so  that  Divine  things  are  here  intrusted  with 
whom  earthly  things  are  not.  Let  them  know  how  to 
seek  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  give  to  one  that 
asketh If  persons  understand  the  importance  of  bap- 
tism they  will  rather  fear  the  consequent  obligation  than 
the  delay:  true  faith  alone  is  secure  of  salvation." — Ue 
Baptismo,  cap.  xvlii. 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOR  257 

the  saving  efficacy  of  Baptism,  did  not  agree 
with  him  that  the  rite  should  be  delayed;  but 
administered  to  all  infants,  lest  by  some  acci- 
dental occurrence  they  should  be  cut  off  in  an 
unsuspected  moment,  and  die  without  baptism, 
and  so  be  lost. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  those  who 
first  introduced  and  advocated  the  validity  of 
infant  baptism,  rested  their  main  argument 
upon  its  saving  power.  Their  appeals  were 
directed  to  the  parents'  hearts,  declaring  in  the 
most  positive  terms,  that  their  infants,  dying 
unbaptized,  would  be  lost,  or  at  least  their  sal- 
vation would  be  greatly  endangered. 

I  wish  to  substantiate  this  statement  by  a 
few  quotations  from  their  own  authors. 

Augustin  says,  "  Not  only  persons  who  are 
come  to  the  use  of  reason,  but  also  little  chil- 
dren, and  infants  newly  born,  if  they  die  with- 
out baptism,  do  go  into  everlasting  fire." — 
Westlake,  p.  11. 

Anselm  says,  "  Children  should  be  baptized, 
that  they  may  be  freed  from  original  sin." — Ibid. 

Bernard  says,  "  Without  baptism,  children 
cannot  be  saved." — Ibid. 

The  Church  of  England  instructs  children  to 
answer,  "  Baptism,  wherein  I  wTas  made  a 
member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Cyprian,  A.  D.,  253.  "  As  far  as  lies  in  us, 
no  soul,  if  possible,  is  to  be  lost.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the 
22* 


258 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 


grace  of  God ;  which  rule,  as  it  holds  to  all,  so 
we  think  it  more  especially  to  be  observed  in. 
reference  to  infants,  to  whom  our  help  and  the 
Divine  mercy  is  rather  to  be  granted  ;  because, 
by  their  weeping  and  wailing,  at  their  first 
entrance  into  the  world,  they  do  intimate  no- 
thing so  much  as  that  they  implore  compas- 
sion." 

Ambrose,  A.  D.,  390.  "  For  no  person 
comes  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  by  the 
sacrament  of  baptism.  Infants  that  are  bap- 
tized are  reformed  back  again  from  wicked- 
ness to  the  primitive  state  of  their  nature." 

Chrysostom,  A.  D.,  398.  "The  grace  of 
baptism  gives  cure  without  pain,  and  fills  us 
with  the  grace  of  the  Spirit.  Some  think  that 
the  heavenly  grace  consists  only  in  the  for- 
giveness of  sins;  but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten 
advantages  of  it."  "  If  sudden  death  seize  us 
before  we  are  baptized,  though  we  have  a 
thousand  good  qualities,  there  is  nothing  to  be 
expected  but  hell." — See  the  original  of  these 
passages  in  Mr.  WalVs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  Vol.  I. 
ch.  6,  13,  14;  and  II.  ch.  6.  * 

The  late  Bishop  White,  of  Philadelphia,  said, 
"  If  baptism  is  not  regeneration,  I  know  not 
what  is." 

An  epitaph  upon  a  monumental  stone  in  the 
yard  of  the  Peterborough  Cathedral,  is  as  fol- 
lows, 

"  Here  lies  a  babe  that  only  cry'd 

In  baptism  to  be  washed  from  sin,  and  died." 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  359 

Mr.  J.  Wesley  says,  "  If  infants  are  guilty  of 
original  sin,  in  the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot 
be  saved  unless  this  be  washed  away  by  bap- 
tism." This  agrees  with  the  uniform  senti- 
ment of  the  Church  of  Rome.  She  says, 
"  Sin,  whether  contracted  by  birth,  from  our 
first  parents,  or  committed  of  ourselves,  by 
the  virtue  of  baptism,  is  remitted  and  pardon- 
ed. By  baptism  we  are  joined  and  knit  to 
Christ,  as  members  to  the  head." 

And  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  she  says,  "  If 
any  one  shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessa- 
ry to  salvation,  let  him  be  accursed." 

And  again,  "Such  is  the  admirable  efficacy 
of  this  sacrament  (of  baptism)  as  to  remit 
original  sin,  and  actual  guilt,  however  enor- 
mous." Cat.  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  127. 

St.  Gregory  says :  "  By  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  sin  is  utterly  eradicated,  and  the  soul 
adheres  entirely  to  God."  L.  9.  Reg.  epist.  39. 

Such,  my  friends,  are  the  opinions  respect- 
ing infant  baptism.  It  is  regarded  as  possess- 
ing a  saving  power.  From  its  first  introduc- 
tion, to  this  day,  Pedobaptists  of  all  names 
have  ascribed  to  it  a  sanctifying  and  saving 
importance. 

Of  late  years,  I  know,  when  so  much  light 
has  been  reflected,  and  so  many  invincible  ar- 
guments urged  against  infant  baptism,  and 
against  its  saving  power,  there  has  been  a  mo- 
dification. Some  Protestant  churches  say  but 
little  about  it  being   necessary  to   salvation; 


26$  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

yet,  even  these  urge  upon  parents  the  duty,  as 
they  are  pleased  to  call  it,  of  bringing  their 
infant  seed  to  Christ  by  baptism  ;  and  place 
upon  them  the  seal  of  the  covenant. 

Such  an  importance  do  even  Protestant  Pe- 
dobaptists  in  this  favoured  land,  attach  to  in- 
fant baptism,  as  not  to  suffer  a  child  to  die 
without  it,  if  by  any  means  they  may  have 
access  to  the  dying  babe,  to  perform  upon  it 
this  rite. 

It  has  been,  until  very  lately,  and  is  even 
now  practised  in  many  Pedobaptist  communi- 
ties, for  infants  and  adults  too,  to  be  sprinkled 
at  the  point  of  death. 

The  priest  is  sent  for  in  great  haste,  at  the  mid- 
night hour,  to  come,  ere  the  breath  has  left  the 
body,  and  sprinkle  the  dying  subject.  I  appeal 
for  the  truth  of  what  I  say  to  the  experience 
and  information  of  those  who  hear  me.  And 
what  is  still  more  surprising,  instances  are  not 
wanting,  when  adults,  at  death's  door,  so  near 
expiring  as  not  to  be  conscious  of  what  is 
passing  around  their  dying  couch,  are  sprin- 
kled, and  said  to  be  baptized,  and  better  pre- 
pared for  death  and  eternity. 

Indeed,  among  the  more  superstitious,  it  is 
thought  a  sore  calamity  for  a  child  to  die  un- 
baptized.  And  in  some  places  even  the  dead 
have  been  sprinkled,  with  the  hope  of  benefit- 
ing their  souls. 

Baptists  in  every  age  have  opposed  senti- 
ments so  preposterous  and  dangerous  as  these. 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  261 

Their  blood  cries  from  the  earth  in  every  land, 
where  the  combined  powers  of  church  and 
state  could  be  brought  to  bear  against  them, 
simply  for  not  submitting  to  the  application  of 
baptism  to  infants;  the  saving  efficacy  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  the  union  of  church  and  state. 
In  the  language  of  the  poet,  J.  Montgomery, 

"  When  Europe  languished  in  barbarian  gloom, 

Beneath  the  ghostly  tyranny  of  Rome; 

From  Persecution's  pile,  by  bigots  fired, 

Among  Bohemian  mountains  Truth  retired  ; 

Then  'midst  rude  rocks,  in  lonely  glens  obscure, 

She  found  a  people  scath'd,  and  scorn'd,  and  poor  ; 

A  little  flock  through  quiet  valleys  led, 

A  Christian  Israel  in  the  desert  fed ; 

While  ravening  wolves,  that  scorn'd  the  Shepherd's  head, 

Laid  waste  God's  heritage  through  every  land." 

But  to  return.  Tradition,  and  not  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  one  of  the  chief  supports  of  infant 
baptism.  And  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten, 
that,  it  has  ever  been  the  cunning  policy  of  the 
Roman  Church  to  appeal  to  tradition  in  sup- 
port of  her  numerous  dogmas  when  she  could 
no  longer  impose  upon  the  unsuspecting,  by 
erroneous  translations  and  interpretations  of 
Scripture. 

The  Council  of  Trent  puts  it  down,  as  a 
canon  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  "traditions, 
respecting  both  faith  and  manners,  orally  de- 
livered, and  preserved  successively  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  are  to  be  received  with 
equal  affection  of  piety  and  reverence,  as  the 


252  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments." — Sess. 
4  Decret.  de  canon.  Scripte. 

Now  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Protestant 
Pedobaptists  take  sides  with  Papal  Pedobap- 
tists  in  attempting  to  support  infant  baptism 
by  tradition. 

Mr.  Field  says,  "The  baptism  of  infants  is, 
therefore,  named  a  tradition,  because  it  is  not 
expressly  delivered  in  Scripture  that  the  Apos- 
tles did  baptize  infants,  nor  any  express  pre- 
cept there  found  that  they  should  do  so." — On 
the  Church,  p.  375. 

Bishop  Prideaux  says,  "  Pedobaptism  rests 
on  no  other  Divine  right  than  Episcopacy." — 
Fascicul.  Contro.  Soc.  4,  §  iii.  p.  210. 

Hence,  in  the  year  1547,  an  edict  was  drawn 
up,  by  the  authority  of  the  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, Charles  V.,  to  allay  disputes  between 
Romanists  and  the  Reformers,  wherein  tradi- 
tion is  expressly  stated  as  the  ground  of  infant 
baptism.  "The  Church,  moreover,  has  tradi- 
tions handed  down  to  these  times  from  Christ 
and  the  Apostles,  through  the  hands  of  the 
bishops,  which  whoever  would  overturn,  he 
must  deny  the  same,  viz.,  the  Church,  to  be  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  truth.  Of  this  sort  are 
the  baptism  of  little  ones,  and  other  things." — 
In  Dr,  Ryland's  Candid  Statement,  Notes,  p.  29. 

Well  was  it  remarked  by  a  learned  Presby- 
terian, when  writing  against  the  corruptions  of 
the  Church    of  England,  showing  her   close 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF.  263 

affinity  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  "  The 
spirit  of  ceremony-making  and  Church  tyranny, 
is  of  a  restless  and  encroaching  nature,  and 
ought  timely  to  be  crushed.  'Twas  from  such 
little  beginnings  the  mass  of  Romish  fopperies 
grew  up  to  its  present  enormous  and  oppres- 
sive height." 

Now  please  observe  how  this  Presbyterian 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  is  met  by  an  Epis- 
copalian of  the  Church  of  England.  Dr. 
Whitby  observes,  "Baptism  by  immersion  is 
suitable  both  to  the  institution  of  our  Lord  and 
his  Apostles,  and  was  by  them  ordained  to  re- 
present our  burial  with  Christ,  and  so  our  dying 
unto  sin,  and  our  conformity  to  his  resurrec- 
tion by  newness  of  life,  as  the  Apostle  doth 
clearly  maintain  the  meaning  of  that  rite;  I 
say,  if,  notwithstanding  this,  all  our  dissenters, 
(i.  e.  Pedobaptists  out  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,) do  agree  to  sprinkle  the  infant,  why  may 
they  not  as  well  submit  to  the  significant  cere- 
monies imposed  by  our  Church  ?  For  since  it  is 
as  lawful  to  add  unto  Christ's  institutions  a 
significant  ceremony,  as  to  diminish  a  signi- 
ficant ceremony  which  he  or  his  Apostles  in- 
stituted, and  use  another  in  its  stead,  which 
they  never  did  institute;  what  reason  can  they 
have  to  do  the  latter,  and  yet  refuse  submission 
to  the  former?  And  why  should  not  the  peace 
and  union  of  the  Church  be  as  prevailing  with 
them,  to  perform  the  one,  as  their  mercy  to  the 


264  TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 

infant's  body  to  neglect  the  other  V9 — Protes- 
tant Reconciler,  p.  289. 

Well  did  a  learned  Quaker,  Henry  Tuke, 
remark,  "  This,  I  think,  may,  with  confidence, 
be  asserted,  that  the  sprinkling  of  infants  is  a 
ceremony  which  has  neither  precept  nor  ex- 
ample in  the  holy  Scriptures;  all  the  arguments 
for  it  being  drawn  from  equivocal  suppositions. 
For  any,  therefore,  to  censure  us  for  the  disuse 
of  water  baptism,  who  have  themselves  laid 
aside  the  use  of  it,  and  substituted  something 
else  in  its  stead,  is  not  a  little  extraordinary." — 
See  his  Works,  under  the  article  Baptism. 

It  must  be  confessed,  that  the  Quakers  are 
by  far  more  consistent  than  Pedobaptists.  I 
could  sooner,  and  with  a  better  conscience, 
practise  the  entire  disuse  of  baptism,  than  to 
substitute  sprinkling  for  baptism,  or  infants  for 
subjects.  And  I  cannot  avoid  the  conviction 
that  the  Saviour  would  be  better  pleased  with 
those  who  have  thus  entirely  changed  this 
Divinely  appointed  rite,  would  they  neglect 
it  altogether. 

Again,  such  is  the  uncertainty  of  the  best  of 
traditions,  that  whatever  is  plead,  on  the  ground 
of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  the  traditions 
of  the  Fathers,  had  better  be  omitted.  To 
appeal  to  such  sources  for  proof  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism,  as  little  becomes  the  follower  of 
Christ,  as  it  greatly  favours  the  Church  of 
Rome.  If  tradition  be  once  admitted  as  valid 
proof  for  practices  in  religion,  for  which  there 


TRADITION  NOT  VALID  PROOF. 


265 


is  nothing  in  our  Scriptures,  it  will  be  easy  to 
establish  any  and  every  practice  of  the  Papal 
Church.* 

*  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  earnest  endeavour  to  keep 
a  translation  of  the  New  Testament  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  common  people,  and  in  support  of  tradition,  as  of 
Divine  authority,  uses  the  following-  language:  "  I  take 
it,  that  the  word  of  God  umvryten,  is  of  as  greate  authoryte, 
as  certayn,  and  as  sure,  as  hys  worde  wryten  in  the  IScryp- 
ture,  w^ich  poynt  is  so  faste  and  sure,  pytched  upon  the 
rocke,  our  Savyour  Chryst  hymself,  that  neyther  Luther, 
Tyndale,  nor  Huskyn,  nor  all  the  hell-hounds  that 
the  devyll  hath  in  his  kenell,  never  hytherto  could,  nor 
while  God  lyveth  in  heven  and  the  devyll  lyeth  in  hell, 
never  hereafter  shall,  barke  they,  howle  they  never  so  fast, 
be  able  to  wreste  it  out." — Apology,  p.  32  ;  Confutation, 
p.  176. 

These  unwritten  traditions  have  been  collected  in  an 
8vo.  volume,  by  the  celebrated  Dr.  R.  Smyth,  popish 
reader  of  divinity  in  Oxford.  The  Dr.  very  soberly  in- 
forms us  that  these  traditions  are  to  be  most  sacredly  re- 
garded. He  says,  "  We  must  both  believe  stedfastly, 
and  also  fulfill  obedientlye  under  payne  of  damnation  ever 
to  endure.  They  are,  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, only  to  be  given  by  a  priest; — to  be  taken  fasting; 
— the  wine  to  have  water  mingled  with  it; — the  consecra- 
tion of  the  elements; — to  be  kept  in  the  pyxe,  or  boxe,  at 
Church; — pr  yers  for  the  dead; — christening  of  infants, 
which  necessary  thinge  hangeth  only  upon  the  Apostle's 
tradition,  wythout  anye  IScripture  that  can  prove,  it ,- — 
praying  towards  the  east ; — elevating-  and  worshipping 
the  host; — making  the  sign  of  the  cross; — worshipping 
the  crucifix — keeping  Easter  and  holydays  ; — putting 
pictures  and  images  in  churches  ; — fasting  in  Lent  and  on 
every  Wednesday  and  Friday ; — holy  water  ; — priests  not 
to  marry  ; — Mary  continued  a  virgin  until  death,  and  that 
her  body  is  in  heaven,"  &c. 

Such  are  some  of  the  unwritten  traditions  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,    held   as  sacred  as  the   Word  of  God.     The 
23 


266  INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 

Section  IV. 

INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY  PLEAD  IN  FAVOUR  OF  INFANT 
BAPTISM,  AND  INFANT  CHURCH  MEMBERSHIP. 

We  are  told,  "  although  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  contain  any  specific  texts, 
which  in  so  many  words  declare  that  the  in- 
fant seed  of  believers  are  members  of  the 
church  in  virtue  of  their  birth;"  and  so  have 
a  right  to  baptism,  "  yet  it  abounds  in  passages 
which  cannot  reasonably  be  explained  but  in 
harmony  with  this  doctrine."     Miller,  p.  26. 

This,  it  should  be  observed,  is  alleged  on 
the  supposition  that  inferential  testimony  is 
equivalent  to  plain  express  commands  in  proof 
of  positive  institutions;  the  very  'point  which 
Baptists  deny,  and  which  Protestant  Pedo- 
baptists  themselves  utterly  deny  when  con- 
tending with  the  church  of  Rome  and  the 
infidelity  of  the  age ;  and  the  very  point 
which  I  hope  to  show,  is  gratuitously  assumed 

Church  of  England,  when  she  first  came  off  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  brought  most  of  the  above  traditions 
with  her.  But  she  has  dropt  one  after  another,  till  many  of 
them  are  not  retained  in  her  worship;  yet  the  Church  of 
England,  and  all  Pedobaptists,  still  retain  the  "  christen- 
ing of  infants,  which  necessary  thing,"  says  the  learned 
Romanist,  "  han get h  only  upon  JJpostolic  trad ii ion,  without 
any  Scripture  that  can  prove  it."  May  we  not  hope  that 
Protestant  Christians  will  soon  abandon  such  a  tradition  ? 
The  peace  of  Z'rcfii  would  hereby  be  promoted,  God 
glorified,  and  the  world  blessed. 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


267 


for  the  sake  of  holding  up  a  favourite,  yet  a 
groundless  scheme.  No  inference,  however 
well  drawn  from  premises  the  most  indisput- 
able, can  ever  afford  justifiable  ground  upon 
which  to  rest  a  divine  rite  in  the  worship  of 
God.  And  yet  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  make 
inferential  testimony  one  of  the  pillars  upon 
which  they  rest,  and  would  fain  establish  the 
right  of  incorporating  their  infant  seed  in  the 
Christian  church;  and  then,  by  way  of  con- 
sequence, to  bring  them  to  the  public  institu- 
tions of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  As  much  as 
we  love  and  respect  them,  yet  we  can  never 
concede  to  them  a  principle  so  fearful  in  its 
tendency,  and  so  subversive  of  every  divinely 
appointed  rite. 

Fair  and  necessary  deductions,  from  plain 
and  unequivocal  premises  laid  down  in  the 
Bible,  are  certainly  to  be  admi;ted  as  moral 
truths  binding  upon  the  conscience;  but  never 
are  they  to  be  taken  as  proof  for  divine  institu- 
tions. We  must  not  confound  moral  truth 
with  positive  commands.  Such  a  distinction 
must  not  be  overlooked  or  forgotten.  It  is 
one  of  vast  importance.  The  moment  you 
destroy  it,  you  make  way  for  the  entire  sub- 
version of  every  institution  of  the  Bible,  and 
for  the  traditions  and  opinions  of  men  to  take 
their  place  in  the  Christian  system. 

For  a  positive  institution  there  must  be  a 
positive  command  or  example.  And  where 
these  are  wanting  there  is  not,  and  cannot  be 
any  obligation. 


268 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


And  our  Pedobaptist  friends  have  felt  the 
force  and  acknowledged  the  correctness  of 
this  position,  when  contending  against  the 
gross  errors  of  the  church  of  Rome. 

Says  the  judicious  Dr.  Sherlock: 

"I  would  not  be  thought  wholly  to  reject  a 
plain  and  evident  consequence  from  Scrip- 
ture; but  yet  1  will  never  admit  of  a  mere 
consequence  to  prove  an  institution,  which 
must  be  delivered  in  plain  terms,  as  all  laws 
ought  to  be;  and  where  I  have  no  other  proof, 
but  some  Scripture  consequences,  I  shall  not 
think  it  equivalent  to  Scripture  proof.  If  the 
consequence  be  plain  and  obvious,  and  such 
as  every  man  sees,  I  shall  not  question  it ;  but 
remote,  and  dubious,  and  disputed  conse- 
quences, if  we  have  no  better  evidence,  to  be 
sure,  are  a  very  ill  foundation  for  articles  of 
faith,  or  ordinances  of  worship.  Let  a  Pro- 
testant, then,  tell  such  disputants,  that  for  the 
institution  of  sacraments  and  for  articles  of 
faith,  he  expects  plain  positive  proof — we  de- 
sire a  little  more  certainty  for  our  faith  than 
mere  inferences  from  Scripture.'*  Preser. 
against  Pop.  Vol.  ii.  Appen.  p.  23. 

Such  is  the  strong  and  just  reasoning  of  a 
distinguished  Pedobaptist,  when  called  to  take 
the  field  with  the  Romanists. 

But  when  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  come  to 
support  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  by  in- 
ferences and  deductions  from  Scripture,  they 
abandon  those  very  rules  of  interpretation  which 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  ggg 

they  acknoiuledged  and  wielded  so  manfully 
and  successfully  against  the  corruptions  of  the 
Roman  church. 

1.  The  first  passages  from  which  our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  think  they  can  infer  infant 
baptism,  are  recorded  by  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20, 
and  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  which  contain  that  di- 
vine commission  that  our  Lord  gave  to  his 
Apostles  as  he  was  about  to  send  them  forth 
among  all  nations  to  bear  the  tidings  of  salva- 
tion in  his  name. 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you." 

"  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned." 

Now  this  commission  embraces  several  par- 
ticulars, among  which  there  are  the  field  to 
be  occupied;  "  all  the  icorld;"  "among  all  na- 
tions;"  and  the  duty  which  the  commission 
enforces,  embraces  three  distinct  parts;  first, 
"  Go  teach"  i.  e.,  make  disciples  of  "  all  na- 
tions ;  "  Go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature"  Secondly,  "  Baptizing  them"  who 
become  disciples  and  "  believe,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son>  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  And,  lastly,  these  newlv  converted 
23* 


270 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


and  baptized  disciples  are  to  be  "  instructed  to 
observe  all  tilings  whatsoever  the  Saviour  has 
commanded" 

You  will  particularly  observe  that  nothing 
is  said  about  infants. 

The  Apostles  were  to  go  and  "teach"  i.  e., 
instruct  the  people  in  a  knowledge  of  divine 
things.  To  show  them  their  guilt  and  sin, 
and  point  them  to  the  Lamb  of  God.  Their 
business  was  to  preach  the  gospel,  baptize  be- 
lievers, and  build  them  up  in  the  most  holy 
faith. 

Their  commission  wras  explicit,  and  laid 
down  in  that  order  in  which  it  was  to  be  ob- 
served by  them.  They  had  not  the  liberty  to 
change  the  order  of  divine  appointment.  Nor 
did  they.* 

*  Some  linen  have  taken  the  liberty  to  change  the 
order  of  things  as  left  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  herein 
you  may  see  an  example  of  Pedobaptist  effort  to  make 
out  infant  baptism. 

"Mr.  Simeon,  of  Cambridge,  has  given  us  a  skeleton 
of  a  sermon  on  this  commission  of  Christ,  in  which  he 
proposed  to  consider,  'I.  The  authority  he  claimed. 
II.  The  commission  he  gave  to  his  Apostles.  1.  They 
were  to  teach  all  nations.  2.  They  were  to  baptize  their 
converts  in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Three.'  Then,  he 
adds,  *  But  though  they  first  taught  adults,  and  then  bap. 
tized  them,  they  REVERSED  this  orhkh  with  respect 
to  infants.' 

"On  reading  this  last  sentence,  the  inquirer  with  sur- 
prise might  ask,  Who  reversed  this  order  }  The  answer 
here  is,  the  Apostles.  Reversed  what  order  ?  The  an- 
swer is,  the  order  of  Jesus  Christ ;  'first,  to  teach,  and 
second,  to  baptize.'     Awful  thought!  that  mortal  worms 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  271 

They  understood  the  nature  and  import  of 
their  commission.  And  their  strict  integrity 
and  pious  labours  in  carrying  out  into  prac- 
tice the  high  behest  of  their  ascended  Lord, 
are  our  best  interpretation  of  the  commission 
as  understood  by  the  inspired  Apostles.  At 
the  appointed  time  they  were  met  at  Jerusa- 
lem, in  a  holy  convocation,  waiting  to  be 
filled,  and,  as  it  were,  swallowed  up  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Being  now  baptized  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  able  to  speak  with  other 
tongues,  they  began,  according  to  their  com- 
mission, to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, 
to  teach  all  nations  here  assembled;  and  most 
signal  favour  and  success  attended  their  min- 
istry. All  of  those  to  whom  the  commission 
had  been  given,  were  present  on  this  deeply 
interesting  occasion,  mingling  their  prayers 
and  uniting  their  labours  for  the  salvation  of 
men ;  directing  the  anxious  inquiring  soul  to 

should  presume  to  alter  the  institutions  of  the  Lord  of* 
Glory;  yea,  to  reverse  the  order  He  ordains! 

"  Here  is  a  candid  confession  that  the  order  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  « reversed  with  respect  to  infants.'  A  fact,  alas! 
too  plain  to  be  denied. 

"  With  respect  to  the  Apostles,  however,  the  charge 
is  not  tnie.  They  never  reversed  any  order  or  appoint- 
ment of  Christ.  He  enjoined  upon  them,  in  his  last 
words,  to  '  teach  men  to  observe  whatsoever  he  had 
commanded  them;'  and  any  adding  or  taking  away,  to 
say  nothing  of  reversing,  he  solemnly  prohibited.  Rev. 
xxii.  18,  19.  The  order  of  Christ  is  reversed,  but  it  was 
not  till  the  Apostles  and  primitive  disciples  were  long-  in 
the  dust."     Pengilly,  p.  25. 


272 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


believe  what  they  had  spoken.  A  great  mul- 
titude gladly  received  the  Apostles'  instruc- 
tions, receiving  the  end  of  their  faith,  the  sal- 
vation of  their  souls.     Acts  ii.  37 — 41. 

But  mark,  in  what  order  did  the  Apostles 
observe  that  commission,  under  whose  vast 
importance  they  were  now  acting  ?  Did  they, 
or  did  they  not  baptize  believers  only?  The 
Spirit  of  God  shall  be  our  interpreter.  They 
tliat  gladly  received  his  word,  were  baptized." 

If  infants  were  baptized  on  this  occasion, 
they  must  have  been  different  from  all  other 
infants  in  the  world.  Such,  indeed,  as  could 
hear  the  Apostles  speak  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, and  be  made  to  see  and  feel  their  guilt, 
were  pricked  in  their  hearts,  could  say  unto 
Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  and  could  gladly 
receive  and  understand  the  instructions  ad- 
ministered unto  them.  To  the  baptism  of 
such  infants,  Baptists  are  the  last  to  object. 
Such  undoubtedly  have  a  right  to  the  ordi- 
nance. For  such  were  embraced  in  the  di- 
vine commission,  and  such  only.  Hear  again 
what  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  say,  when 
they  feel  the  importance  of  the  trust  reposed 
in  them.  Then  they  interpret  Scripture  as 
Baptists  do. 

Dr.  Poole's  continuations,  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations.  The  Greek  is,  make 
disciples  of  all  nations;  but  that  must  be  first 
by  preaching  and  instructing  them  ;  and  Mark 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  273 

expounds  it,  Go  ye  into  all  the  irorld,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature;  that  is, 
to  every  reasonable  creature  capable  of  hear- 
ing and  receiving  it.  I  cannot  be  of  their 
mind  who  think  that  persons  may  be  baptized 
before  they  be  taught;  we  want  precedents 
of  any  such  baptisms  in  the  Scripture."  An- 
nota.  in  loc. 

Saurin.  "  In  the  primitive  church,  instruc- 
tion preceded  baptism  agreeable  to  the  order 
of  Jesus  Christ,  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,"  &c.    In  Paed.  Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  274. 

Mr.  Baxter  has  a  very  forcible  passage  on 
the  same  place.  "  Go  disciple  me  all  nations, 
baptizing  them.  As  for  those  who  say  they 
are  discipled  by  baptizing,  and  not  before  bap- 
tizing, they  speak  not  the  sense  of  the  text; 
nor  that  which  is  true  or  rational;  else,  why 
should  one  be  baptized  more  than  another  1 — 
This  is  not  like  some  occasional  historical 
mention  of  baptism  ;  but  it  is  the  very  com- 
mission of  Christ  to  his  Apostles,  for  preach- 
ing and  baptizing  ;  and  purposely  expresseth 
their  several  works  in  their  several  places 
and  order.  Their  first  task  is,  by  teaching, 
to  make  disciples,  which  are,  by  Mark,  called 
believers.  The  second  work  is,  to  baptize 
them,  whereto  is  annexed  the  promise  of 
their  salvation.  The  third  work  is,  to  teach 
them  all  other  things  which  are  afterwards  to 
be  learned  in  the  school  of  Christ.     [Observe 


274 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


what  follows.]  To  contemn  this  order,  is  to 
renounce  all  rules  of  order;  for  where  can 
we  expect  to  find  it,  if  not  here?  I  profess, 
my  conscience  is  fully  satisfied  with  this  text, 
that  it  is  one  sort  of  faith,  even  saving,  that 
must  go  before  baptism;  and  the  profession 
whereof,  the  minister  must  expect."  In  Psed. 
Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  270. 

Limborch  says,  "  They  could  not  make  dis- 
ciples, unless  by  teaching.  By  that  instruc- 
tion were  disciples  brought  to  the  faith  before 
they  were  baptized." 

Hammond.  "  If  any  have  made  use  of  that 
very  unconcludent  argument  [referring  to  this 
passage,  Acts  ii.  39,]  I  have  nothing  to  say  in 
defence  of  them. — The  word  children  there, 
is  really  the  posterity  of  the  Jews,  and  not  pe- 
culiarly their  infant  children."  Works,  Vol.  i. 
p.  490. 

Limborch,  a  learned  divine  of  Amsterdam. 
"  By  tsxva  the  Apostle  understands,  not  infants, 
but  posterity ;  in  which  signification  the  word 
occurs  in  many  places  of  the  New  Testament; 
see,  among  others,  John,  viii.  39.  [If  ye  were 
Abraham1 s  children,  ye  would  do  the  works  of 
Abraham.']  Whence  it  appears,  that  the  ar- 
gument which  is  very  commonly  taken  from 
this  passage,  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  of 
no  force  and  good  for  nothing."  Comment. 
in  loc. 

Whitby.  "  These  words  will  not  prove  a 
right  of  infants  to  receive  baptism ;  the  pro- 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  975 

mise  here  being  that  only  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
mentioned  in  verses  16,  17,  18,  and  so  relating 
only  to  the  times  of  the  miraculous  effusion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  those  persons  who,  by 
age,  were  capable  of  these  extraordinary 
gifts."     An  not.  on  the  place. 

Doddridge.  "  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to 
your  children.  Considering  that  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  had  been  mentioned  just  before,  it 
seems  most  natural  to  interpret  this  as  a  refer- 
ence to  that  passage  in  Joel,  which  had  been 
so  largely  recited  above,  ver.  17,  &c.  where 
God  promises  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  their 
sons  and  their  daughters."  Fam.  Expos.  Note 
on  the  place. 

2.  Rom.  xi.  16,  17,  "For  if  the  first  fruit  be 
holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  ;  and  if  the  root 
be  holy,  so  are  the  branches. 

And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off, 
and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted 
in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakest  of 
the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree." 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  believing  that 
piety  can  descend,  like  property,  from  parents 
to  children,  have  supposed  that  the  passage 
under  consideration  justified  such  a  belief; 
and  then  infer  that  infants  should  be  baptized. 

Herein  they  are  labouring  under  a  very 
great  mistake.  For  in  the  first  place,  the  pre- 
mises which  they  have  assumed  is  opposed  both 
by  reason  and  Scripture.     There  is  no  such 


276 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


a  thing  as  a  derived  holiness  to  the  infant  seed 
of  believers,  nor  does  the  Scripture  under  ex- 
amination warrant  any  such  opinion. 

So  far  from  it,  here  is  not  one  word  about 
infants.  Paul  is  writing  to  Gentile  converts 
at  Rome.  He  shows  that  their  standing  is  by 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus. 

The  Jewish  nation,  having  turned  away 
from  the  Messiah,  were  cast  off  from  the  spe- 
cial favour  of  God,  while  the  Gentiles  were 
now  enjoying  the  very  standing  in  the  divine 
favour  which  had  been  granted  Israel,  had 
they  received  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

Now  every  thing  here  turns  upon  faith  and 
unbelief.  By  faith  we  are  saved.  By  unbe- 
lief we  are  cut  off  and  lost. 

And  the  point  at  issue  between  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists  is  how  may  we  be  admitted  to 
the  privileges  of  the  church  of  Christ.  Bap- 
tists say  by  faith  in  Christ,  Pedobaptists  say 
that  the  children  of  believing  parents,  by  a 
kind  of  federal  holiness,  are  to  be  baptized 
and  received  into  the  church.  Without  pro- 
tracting remarks,  J  shall  leave  the  candid  to 
judge  on  which  side  the  truth  is  to  be  found. 

I  may,  however,  agreeably  to  my  design, 
cite  some  one  or  two  Pedobaptist  concessions. 

Mr.  Edw.  Williams  exposes  this  error  in 
strong  terms,  in  his  Notes  on  Morrice's  Social 
Religion.  "Our  author  takes  considerable 
pains  to  maintain  a  favourite   point,  which  I 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  277 

shall  pronounce  a  very  precarious  hypothesis. 
It  is  that  of  hereditary  grace,  if  I  may  so  ex- 
press the  notion, — that  all  the  children  of  the 
godly   are    absolutely    interested    in    all    new 

covenant  blessings But  that  interpretation  of 

the  Abrahamic  promise,  Gen.  xvii.  7,  which 
Mr.  M.  and  some  others  have  adopted,  and 
which  considers  the  words  in  their  undistin- 
guished application,  is  replete  with  very  ab- 
surd consequences.  Jehovah,  surely,  was 
not  the  God  of  Abraham  and  of  his  unbeliev- 
ing descendants  in   the   same    respects The 

New  Testament  saints  have  nothing  more  to 
do  with  the  Abrahamic  covenant  than  the  Old 
Testament  believers  who  lived  prior  to  Abra- 
ham."    Notes,  p.  312—317. 

Matt.  Henry.  "  Grace  doth  not  run  in  the 
blood,  nor  are  saving  benefits  inseparably  an- 
nexed to  external  church  privileges;  though 
it  is  common  for  people  thus  to  stretch  the 
meaning  of  God's  promise  to  bolster  them- 
selves up  in  a  vain  hope The  children  of  the 

flesh,  as  such,  by  virtue  of  their  relationship 
to  Abraham — are  not  therefore  the  children  of 
God."     Expos,  on  Rom.  ix.  6—13. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  we  have  in  this 
chapter  a  promise  that  the  Jews  shall  yet  re- 
turn and  receive  Christ  by  faith,  and  therefore 
shall  be  grafted  in  again.  Though  now  cut 
off,  yet  their  case  is  not  hopeless.  "If  they 
abide  not  in  unbelief,  they  shall  be  grafted  in ; 
for  God  is  able  to  graff  them  in  again."  More- 
24 


278  INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 

over  let  us  Gentiles  be  admonished  "  and  be 
not  high  minded,  but  fear."  "  For  if  God  spared 
not  the  natural  branches,  the  Jews,  take  heed 
lest  he  also  spare  not  us,"  who  by  nature  are 
no  better  than  they. 

3.  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  "For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  un- 
believing wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband, 
else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are 
they  holy,"  verse  12 — 14.  Here  again,  an 
attempt  is  made  to  establish  infant  baptism  as 
a  divine  institution  by  the  force  of  inference. 

You  will  observe,  however,  that  the  text 
has  not  one  syllable  about  baptism.  Nor  is 
there  the  most  distant  allusion  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  whatever. 

Indeed  the  most  judicious  Pedobaptist  com- 
mentators agree  with  Baptists  that  no  shadow 
of  proof  can  be  drawn  from  this  Scripture  in 
favour  of  infant  baptism.  Mr.  Barnes  says, 
"  There  is  not  one  word  about  baptism  here  ; 
nor  an  allusion  to  it,  nor  does  the  argument, 
in  the  remotest  degree,  bear  upon  it." 

The  following  citations  will  sufficiently 
show  the  sense  of  the  passage,  as  understood 
by  the  more  candid  Pedobaptists,  with  whose 
views  Baptists  fully  agree. 

Mr.  T.  Williams,  of  London.  "  The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  (believing) 
wife,  &c,  so  that  the  connexion  is  perfectly 
lawful,  and  the  children  are  legitimate,  or  in  a 
ceremonial  sense,  holy."  Cottage  Bible,  on 
the  place. 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  379 

Melancthon,  the  Reformer.  "  The  con- 
nexion of  the  argument  is  this,  '  If  the  use  of 
marriage  should  not  please  God,  your  chil- 
dren would  be  bastards,  and  so  unclean;  but 
your  children  are  not  bastards,  therefore  the 
use  of  marriage  pleaseth  God.'  How  bas- 
tards were  unclean  in  a  peculiar  manner  the 
law  shows,  Deut.  xxiii."  In  Pedobap.  Exam. 
Vol.  ii.  p.  375. 

Suares  and  Vasques.  "The  children  are 
called  holy,  hi  a  civil  sense  :  that  is,  legitimate, 
and  not  spurious.  As  if  Paul  had  said, '  If  your 
marriage  were  unlawful,  your  children  would 
be  illegitimate.  But  the  former  is  not  a  fact; 
therefore  not  the  latter.'  "     Ibid.  p.  373. 

4.  The  next  that  we  shall  examine  is  re- 
corded in  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15.  "Then  were 
there  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he 
should  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  pray;  and 
the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said, 
Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to 
come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and 
departed  thence."  Parallel  with  Mark  x.  13 — 
16.     Luke  xviii.  15—17. 

We  are  told,  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren, 
that  "  This  language  of  our  Lord  concerning 
little  children  can  be  reconciled  with  no  other 
doctrine  than  that  the  infant  seed  of  believers 
are  members  of  the  church  in  virtue  of  their 
birth,"  and  therefore  ought  to  be  baptized. 
They  boldly  assert  that  the  Saviour  baptized 


280 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY. 


these  children,  and  for  that  purpose  they  were 
brought  unto  him.  Then  they  infer  that  be- 
lieving parents  should  bring  their  offspring  to 
the  baptismal  basin. 

Now  our  brethren  who  wish  to  support  in- 
fant baptism  from  this  Scripture,  are  generally 
agreed,  that  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven,"  in 
this  place,  means  the  visible  church. 

"Most  manifestly,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "we 
are  to  understand  by  it,  the  visible  church,  or 
the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  as  distinguished 
both  from  the  world  and  the  old  economy." 

But  then,  it  does  not  mean  that  the  visible 
church  is  made  up  of  such  little  children  ;  but 
rather,  and  manifestly, of  such  adult  persons  as 
have  been  born  again,  and  become  like  little 
babes  in  the  disposition  of  their  minds,  unas- 
piring, not  proud,  nor  vainglorious,  nor  yet 
overbearing;  but  humble,  sincere,  dependent, 
teachable,  and  "easy  to  be  entreated." 

And  that  such  is  the  meaning  is  evident 
by  connecting  this  detached  passage  with  the 
first  part  of  the  preceding  chapter,  where  the 
Saviour  had  been  discoursing  upon  the  proper 
disposition  of  mind  for  his  disciples  to  possess. 
"Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set 
him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  Verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and 
become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever 
therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.     Matt,  xviii.  3,  4. 


INFERENTIAL  TESTIMONY.  gg| 

The  subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom  are  spiritual 
subjects,  "  from  the  least  to  the  greatest," 
without  one  exception. 

In  order  to  enter  into  this  divine  kingdom, 
we  must  be  born  again,  "  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God." 

We  must,  as  it  were,  repossess  the  disposi- 
tion of  a  child,  and  commit  ourselves  to  the 
care  and  direction  of  our  heavenly  Parent. 

In  illustration  whereof,  suffer  me  to  quote 
Bishop  Lowth's  version  of  Isaiah  xlix.  17. 

*'  They  that  destroyed  thee  shall  soon  become  thy  builders; 
And  they  that  laid  the  waste,  shall  become  thy  offspring." 

That  is,  thine  inveterate  and  most  dreaded 
foes  shall  be  so  transformed  by  my  sovereign 
grace,  so  changed  in  their  disposition,  as  to  be- 
come thy  warmest  and  most  attached  friends. 
They  shall  love  thee,  obey  and  serve  thee  as 
thine  own  children. 

It  is  impossible,  therefore,  by  any  power  of 
reasoning  and  inference  to  make  out  infant 
baptism  and  church  membership  from  this 
text.  We  are  expressly  told  the  object  for 
which  these  children  were  brought  to  the  Sa- 
viour, viz:  "that  he  should  put  his  hands  on 
them  and  pray."  And  we  are  told,  moreover, 
what  Jesus  did  to  them,  "  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them,"  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews.  Gen. 
xlviii.  14. 
24* 


282 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 


But  not  a  word  is  said  about  baptizing  them. 
And  you  might  just  as  well  infer  that  the  Sa- 
viour ordained  them,  or  anointed  them  to  the 
priesthood,  as  to  infer  that  he  baptized  them. 
But  what  should  satisfy  every  unprejudiced 
and  candid  mind  is  the  plain  declaration  of 
John  iv.  2,  compare  John  iii.  22,  that  "  Jesus 
himself  baptized  not." 

Poole's  Continuators  say,  "We  must  take 
heed  we  do  not  found  infant  baptism  upon  the 
example  of  Christ  in  this  text ;  for  it  is  certain 
that  he  did  not  baptize  these  children."  An- 
not.  on  Matt.  xix.  14. 

And  so  Mr.  Burkitt;  "They  were  brought 
unto  Jesus  Christ  but  for  one  end.  Not  to 
baptize  them,  but  to  bless  them."  Expo. 
Notes  in  loc» 


Section  V. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  INFERRED  FROM  INFANT  CIRCUMCISION. 

But  by  whom  are  we  told  this?  Upon  what 
is  the  hypothesis  founded  ?  Is  there  one  pas- 
sage on  any  page  of  the  Bible  which  justifies  a 
supposition  so  perfectly  vague  and  incon- 
gruous? Oris  it  not  another  of  those  tradi- 
tionary legends,  which  is  purely  the  creature  of 
the  fancy,  but  now  held  out  to  the  world  as  a 
part  of  Divine  revelation? 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED.  ggg 

Such  is  the  singular  fact.  The  idea  of  bap- 
tism taking  the  place  of  circumcision,  has  not 
a  shadow  of  support  in  the  Word  of  God. 
And  yet,  this  is  the  hypothesis  upon  which 
infant  baptism  rests.  A  poor  foundation,  in- 
deed, for  a  Divine  institution. 

Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles  make  no  men- 
tion whatever,  of  the  derivation  of  baptism 
from  any  Jewish  custom  ;  nor  have  they  any 
where  warranted  us  to  suppose  that  such  an 
idea  ever  entered  their  minds. 

Upon  whom,  then,  shall  the  singular  honour 
be  conferred,  of  finding  out  what  entirely 
escaped  the  observation  of  inspired  men,  and 
even  of  the  Son  of  God  himself?  We  are  bound 
by  every  principle  of  right  to  give  honour  to 
whom  honour  is  due;  nor  shall  those,  who 
have  merited  the  high  distinction  of  espying 
the  connexion  between  baptism  and  circum- 
cision, be  robbed  of  their  peculiar  glory.  Only 
this  much  I  may  remark,  that  while  this  hon- 
our is  shared,  in  common,  among  all  who  be- 
lieve in  infant  baptism,  yet  history  warrants  us 
in  justifying  the  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
as  first  in  the  discovery. 

She  sought  to  find  some  footing  for  her 
tyranny  and  usurpation  over  the  rights  and 
consciences  of  men,  in  making  them  members 
of  the  Church  contrary  to  their  wills,  and  here- 
by subjecting  them  to  her  tyranny,  while  as 
yet  they  have  not  the  power  of  choosing  for 
themselves.  In  the  hour  of  their  unconscious 
infancy  are  they  made  members  of  the  Church. 


2Q4  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

But  failing  to  justify  her  course  by  any  com- 
mand or  example  in  the  sayings  and  doings  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  she  conceived  the 
idea  of  making  the  Jewish  nation  the  same  as 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  then  inferred  Gos- 
pel institutions  from  the  national  customs  of 
the  Jews. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the 
institution  of  baptism,  are,  by  Romanists,  and 
Pedobaptists  generally,  derived,  not  from  the 
wisdom  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  but 
from  Jewish  ceremonies. 

According  to  their  opinion,  the  former  takes 
the  place  of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  and  the 
latter  comes  in  the  room  of  Circumcision. 

I  must  fortify  what  I  have  said  touching  the 
effort  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  identify  the 
Christian  Church  with  the  Jewish  nation,  and 
then  to  infer  Gospel  ordinances  from  the  cere- 
monies of  the  Jews,  lest  I  should  be  thought  to 
misrepresent  their  views.  And  for  this  I  need 
only  cite  the  language  of  the  very  distinguished 
and  learned  Vitringa,  who  says,  "  If  it  be  once 
granted  to  the  Doctors  of  the  Romish  com- 
munion, that  the  order  and  warship  of  the 
Gospel  Church  are  conformable  to  those  of  the 
Jewish  economy,  to  which  the  Papists  always 
look  for  the  chief  support  of  their  numerous 
errors,  they  ivill  plausibly  defend  the  whole  of 
their  ecclesiastical  polity" — De  Synog.  Vet. 
pp.  15,  16. 

And  yet  Dr.  Lightfoot  lays  it  down  as  a 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED.  285 

foundation,  "  That  Christ,  by  himself  and  his 
Apostles,  platforming  the  model  of  churches 
under  the  Gospel,  did  keep  very  close  to  the 
platform  of  synagogues  and  synagogue-worship 
under  the  law." — Vol.  vi.  p.  226. 

Now  on  the  supposition  that  the  Christian 
Church  is  nothing  more  than  a  continuation  of 
the  national  institution  of  the  Jews,  it  is  in- 
ferred that  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  are 
substituted  for  the  ceremonial  observances  of 
the  Jewish  Church  or  nation.  And  hence  it  is 
that  baptism  is  made  to  take  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  and  then  by  a  second  inference,  in 
as  much  as  infants  were  circumcised  under  the 
law,  it  is  plead  that  infants  must  be  baptized 
under  the  Gospel. 

The  Romanists,  and  Pedobaptists  generally, 
endeavour  to  sustain  themselves  in  this  posi- 
tion by  the  power  of  analogy,  which,  to  say  the 
least,  is  a  very  fruitful  source  of  error,  and  has 
been  made  the  ground  of  some  of  the  grossest 
superstitions  of  the  Papal  Church. 

Romanists,  drawing  a  parallel  between  the 
ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  Jews  and  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ,  tell  us,  in  as  much  as  the  Jews 
had  a  High  Priest  over  their  religious  polity,  so 
must  the  Church  of  Christ  have  a  supreme  head 
on  earth;  hence  they  infer  and  maintain,  that 
the  Pope  of  Rome  is  the  head  of  all  ecclesi- 
astical affairs.  As  the  High  Priest  of  the  Jews 
was  set  apart  to  officiate  in  holy  services,  and 
invested  with  more  than  common  dignity  and 
power,  so,  also,  they  infer  that  the  Pope  is  holy 


286  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

and  infallible  in  all  his  doings.  As  circum- 
cision was  practised  by  the  Jews  upon  the  male 
children  of  their  nation,  they  infer  that  baptism 
must  be  administered  to  infants.  As  the  wife 
of  Moses  circumcised  her  son,  so  it  is  lawful 
for  mothers  to  baptize  their  little  ones,  &c. 

Such  reasoning,  it  must  be  granted,  is  al- 
together unfriendly  to  the  spread  of  pure  Chris- 
tianity. It  must  appear  evident,  even  to  a  par- 
tial observer,  that  such  a  contrivance,  assum- 
ing one  thing  and  inferring  another,  and  then 
making  the  inference  the  proof  of  something 
else,  is  far  better  suited  to  the  cause  of  infidelity 
than  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  virtue.  Who- 
ever deals  thus  in  matters  of  religion,  not  a 
little  hinders  that  cause  which  he  would  pro- 
mote. In  arguing  thus,  any  thing  may  be 
proved  which  shall  suit  the  prejudices  and  con- 
veniences of  proud  and  ambitious  men.  Can 
it  be  supposed  that  such  a  course  of  reasoning 
shall  contribute  to  the  spread  of  the  glory  of 
Christ,  and  the  salvation  of  men?  O  no,  my 
brethren,  it  weakens  the  force  of  truth  on  the 
conscience,  and  divides  the  people  of  God 
asunder. 

Time  can  never  disclose  all  the  unhappy 
disasters  which  fall  upon  the  Church  and  the 
world  by  reason  of  identifying  infants  with 
the  spiritual  Church  of  Christ.  O,  when  shall 
men  cease  to  pervert  the  right  ways  of  the 
Lord  1  When  shall  Christians  be  satisfied  with 
what  the  Saviour  has  left  us  by  the  spirit  of 
inspiration? 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED.  337 

Again,  it  is  said  that  circumcision  is  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  and  by  being  applied  to  infants, 
it  introduced  them  into  the  Jewish  Church ; 
then,  from  the  supposition  that  baptism  comes 
in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  that  it  is  the 
seal  of  a  covenant,  it  is  inferred  that  infants 
must  be  baptized  and  initiated  into  the  Christian 
Church. 

But  this  position  is  assumed  without  one 
shade  of  evidence.  Circumcision  is  the  seal 
of  no  covenant;  certainly  not  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  or  the  covenant  of  redemption.  This 
is  an  everlasting  covenant,  beginning  and  end- 
ing only  in  God,  having  eternity  as  the  space  of 
its  existence.  Let  none,  therefore,  be  betrayed 
into  the  mistaken  notion  that  such  a  covenant, 
so  grand  and  glorious,  is  sealed  by  the  bloody 
practice  of  circumcision.  Nothing  can  be 
more  absurd.  Of  what  covenant,  then,  is  cir- 
cumcision the  seal,  and  what  does  it  seal? 
When  was  baptism  substituted  for  circum- 
cision, and  by  whom  was  the  change  effected? 
Answers  to  these  interrogations  are  to  be 
sought  elsewhere  than  in  the  Bible;  for  the 
Bible  authorizes  no  such  opinions. 

Is  it  not  passing  strange  that,  when  the  ques- 
tion respecting  circumcision  was  considered 
by  a  council  composed  of  Apostles  and  Elders, 
convened  at  Jerusalem,  not  one  word  should  be 
said  about  baptism  taking  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, if,  indeed,  such  a  substitution  was  ever 
intended  ?  This  surprise  is  heightened  when  we 


28g  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

consider  the  object  which  called  that  council 
together.  A  sect  of  the  Pharisees  taught  the 
converts  "that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise 
them,  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law 
of  Moses."  "The  Apostles  and  Elders  came 
together  for  to  consider  of  this  matter."  Acts 
xv.  5,  6.  The  decision  of  this  apostolic  council 
was,  that  circumcision  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  followers  of  Christ.  Verses  24 — 29.  Had 
such  an  idea,  as  baptism  being  substituted  for 
circumcision,  entered  the  minds  of  the  Apos- 
tles, would  they  not  have  given  information  to 
that  effect? 

Nothing  could  have  been  more  apposite  the 
design  of  that  council  than  to  have  pacified 
those,  whose  minds  were  disturbed,  by  inform- 
ing them  that  their  baptism  answered  to  cir- 
cumcision, if,  indeed,  such  had  been  the  case. 
But  the  Apostles  on  that  occasion  say  not  one 
word  about  baptism;  and  for  the  very  good 
reason,  baptism  has  not  the  remotest  connexion 
with  circumcision,  nor  with  any  covenant 
made  with  Abraham. 

Indeed,  the  idea  that  circumcision  seals  the 
covenant,  and  answered  to  baptism  under  the 
Gospel,  is  as  visionary  as  it  is  unscripturaL 
Never  could  a  notion  so  perfectly  void  of  the 
least  semblance  of  truth,  have  been  so  widely 
accredited,  had  not  advantage  been  taken  of 
our  infancy,  and  we  made  to  believe  it  from 
our  earliest  recollections,  while  yet  cloistered  in 
the  nursery. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED.  289 

And  anon, 
"  The  priest  hath  finished  what  the  nurse  begun." 

The  truth  is  that  no  such  idea  as  that  for 
which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  contend,  has 
any  foundation  in  the  Bible.  Their  best  writers, 
when  endeavouring  to  sustain  their  opinions, 
that  circumcision  is  the  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  and  that  infant  baptism  comes  in  lieu 
of  infant  circumcision,  are  perfectly  unintel- 
ligible. They  manifestly  show  that  they  them- 
selves have  no  clear  and  well  defined  concep- 
tions of  what  they  so  confidently  affirm.  "I 
found,"  says  one,  "  myself  in  clouds  and  dark- 
ness. I  wandered  about  in  the  fogs  with  which 
writers  have  shrouded  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, the  connexion  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  dispensations;  the  substitution  of  modern 
for  ancient  rites  and  ordinances;  the  obscure 
passages  of  ecclesiastical  history,  bewildered 
and  perplexed."  This  is  not  the  sentiment  of 
one,  but  of  many.  It  is  even  so.  Neither  the 
priests,  nor  their  unsuspecting  flocks,  who  pin 
their  faith  on  their  shepherd's  sleeve,  seem  to 
"  know  what  they  say,  or  whereof  they  affirm." 

Indeed,  there  are  few  ways  in  which  you 
can  more  successfully  torture  the  feelings  of 
intelligent  Pedobaptists,  than  to  ask  them  to 
put  their  finger  upon  some  plain  Scripture 
proof,  that  circumcision  is  the  seal  of  a  cove- 
nant; that  baptism  comes  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized  and 
received  into  the  Christian  Church,  on  the 
25 


29(j  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

ground  that  infants  were  circumcised,  and 
composed  a  part  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Ask  the 
more  enlightened  among  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren,  to  show  some  plain  unequivocal 
Scripture  proof  for  any  of  these  opinions  upon 
which  they  hold  with  such  an  unyielding  tena- 
city, and  they  give  signs  that  your  question 
is  an  unwelcome  one,  while  you  are  told,  "  the 
Bible  is  full  of  such  proof."  If  not  satisfied 
with  a  reply  so  indefinite,  you  are  referred  to 
some  texts,  often  the  most  obscure,  upon  which 
suppositions  are  raised,  and  the  sense  actually 
guessed  at,  and  thence  inferences  are  deduced, 
which  are  the  proof  offered  in  the  answer  to 
your  inquiry.  If  not  satisfied  with  suppositions 
and  inferences,  but  desire  plai?i  positive  proof, 
then  the  subject  becomes  so  sacred  and  impor- 
tant as  not  to  be  called  in  question — supported 
by  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  by  some  of  the  most 
learned  and  pious  in  the  world.  [{  still  incredu- 
lous and  unbelieving,  and  yet  inquisitive,  then 
the  subject  has  lost  its  great  importance,  and  be- 
comes u  Non-essential,"*  a  mere  external  rite ; 
"you  had  better  not  give  yourselves  any  further 
trouble  about  it;"  "  you  will  not  be  asked,  in  the 
day  of  judgment  when,  nor  how,  you  were  bap- 
tized ;"  "  any  thing  will  answer,  only  be  per- 
suaded in  your  own  mind;"  "there  is  just  as 

*  It  is  well  remarked  by  that  pious  and  eminent  servant 
of  Christ,  G.  T.  Bedell,  late  of*  Philadelphia,  "It  is  a  most 
false  philosophy  ;  and  it  is  not  only  a  false,  but  a  fatal 
theology,  which  would  ever  conceive  or  represent  matters 
of  doctrine  as  of  comparative  unimportance." — His  Life, 
vol.  ii.  p.  297. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 


291 


much  Scripture  for  infant  baptism,  as  there  is 
for  female  communion."  Such  are  the  com- 
mon every-day  answers  returned  to  anxious  in- 
quirers after  truth,  who,  if  not  possessed  of 
some  degree  of  firmness  and  decision  of  cha- 
racter, are  led  into  forbidden  paths,  and  left 
"  bewildered  and  perplexed." 

Such,  too,  are  the  arguments  advanced  in 
support  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  a  Divine  in- 
stitution. Indeed,  the  very  extreme  efforts, 
and  singular  arguments  brought  forward  in 
favour  of  infant  baptism,  might  well  suggest  to 
a  thinking  mind  the  unsoundness  of  any  posi- 
tion requiring  such  support. 

Some  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  have  seen 
and  felt  the  invalidity  of  such  proof,  as  well  as 
the  unscriptural  nature  of  such  positions,  and 
have  ingenuously  abandoned  them. 

The  learned  Cattenburgh  says,  "Though  ap- 
parently there  is  a  great  similitude  between 
circumcision  and  baptism,  yet  it  does  not  thence 
follow  that  this  comes  in  the  place  of  that,  be- 
cause, on  the  same  principle,  a  person  might 
argue  that  bread  and  wine,  in  the  sacred  sup- 
per, succeeded  in  the  place  of  manna,  and  of 
water  from  the  rock.  Is  it  to  be  believed,  on 
supposition  of  this  assertion  concerning  bap- 
tism being  admitted,  that  John  the  Baptist, 
in  his  preaching,  would  not  have  signified  some- 
thing of  this  kind;  and  that  our  Lord  himself 
would  not  have  taught  his  disciples  concerning 
such  an  appointment? 

"  We  must  add,  when  so  sharp  a  controversy 


292  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

was  agitated  about  circumcision,  Acts  xv.,  not 
so  much  as  a  tittle  occurs  relating  to  such  a 
succession,  which,  nevertheless,  on  that  occa- 
sion ought  principally  to  have  been  mentioned. 
Further,  besides  the  difference  of  circum- 
stances mentioned  by  the  learned  Limborch, 
and  the  most  evident  argument,  none  but  male 
children  were  circumcised,  therefore,  they  only 
are  to  be  baptized;  others  add,  circumcision  was 
performed  by  a  knife,  but  baptism  is  adminis- 
tered in  water.  The  circumcision  of  infants 
was  urged  by  the  Lord  with  such  great  rigour, 
that  Moses  himself  was  threatened  with  de- 
struction for  its  neglect,  Exod.  iv.  24;  and 
fathers  neglecting  that  rite,  it  was  lawful  for 
mothers  to  circumcise  their  sons,  Exod.  iv.  25, 
which  the  reformed  prohibit  to  women,  or  do 
not  permit,  in  regard  to  baptism. 

"  Circumcision  was  not  performed  in  the 
name  of  any  one  as  baptism  is  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Circumcision  was  performed  upon  one 
member  only ;  whereas,  in  baptism,  the  whole 
body  is  ordered  to  be  immersed.  Principally 
circumcision  was  a  discriminating  mark  of  the 
Jews  from  other  nations;  whereas  baptism 
tends  to  unite  all  nations  in  one  body."  Spici- 
leg.  Theology,  L.  iv.  c.  04,  §  2,  22. 

Moreover,  let  it  be  remarked,  circumcision 
tuas  the  seal  of  no  covenant*     It  is  our  Pedo- 

*  A  seal  is  one  thing1,  and  a  token  is  quite  a  different 
thing1.     A  seal  is  an  act  of  confirmation;  that  which  rati- 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED.  293 

baptist  brethren,  and  not  the  Bible,  that  tell  us 
circumcision  is  the  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant. 

That  you  may  no  longer  be  betrayed  into 
the  gratuitous  and  ungrounded  assertions  re- 
specting the  nature  and  design  of  circumci- 
sion, it  becomes  me  to  present  it  in  its  true 
light. 

Now  there  are  three  things  to  be  said  of 
circumcision,  which,  properly  considered,  will 
remove  the  great  ambiguity  and  perplexity 
that  have  been  thrown  around  it,  by  denomi- 
nating it  the  seal  of  a  covenant. 

Circumcision  was  a  token  or  sign  of  a  dis- 
tinct and  specified  covenant,  which  was  not  the 
covenant  of  grace  or  redemption,  but  a  cove- 
nant consisting  in  an  agreement  between 
God  and  Abraham.  Jehovah  promises  to 
Abraham,  that  he  shall  be  a  father  of  many 
nations;  that  he  and  his  seed  shall  have  all  the 
land  of  Canaan,  of  which  he  was  now  a  stran- 
ger;  and  that  the  Lord  shall  be  their  God. 
Gen.  xvii.  4 — 8.  On  the  other  hand,  God  re- 
quires and  Abraham  promises  that  Every 
man-child  born  in  his  house,  or  bought  of 
strangers,  shall  be  circumcised  at  eight  days 
old.  Gen.  xvii.  9 — 13.  Connected  with  this, 
Abraham  promises,  at  the  command  of  God,  to 

fies  or  establishes,  or  evinces  the  certainty  of  a  thing-; — 
whereas  a  token  is  only  a  sign,  or  a  mark  by  which  things 
may  be  known. 

25* 


294  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

go  in  pursuit  of  the  promised  land.     Heb.  xi. 
8,  9. 

Now  this  is  the  specified  covenant  of  which 
circumcision  was  a  token.  Hence  it  is  de- 
nominated "  The  covenant  of  circumcision;" 
because  circumcision  was  one  part  of  the 
covenant.  And,  with  equal  propriety,  it  may 
be  denominated  The  covenant  of  a  numerous 
posterity,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  by  the  favour 
of  God;  because  herein  consisted  the  other 
part  of  the  covenant.  Consult  Nehemi.  ix.  7, 
8.     Acts  vii.  2— S. 

Now  let  it  be  observed,  that  circumcision 
was  a  national  and  distinctive  mark,  given  to 
be  observed  by  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  or 
the  nation  of  the  Jews,  in  their  successive 
generations,  and  particularly  designed  to  keep 
the  male  part  of  the  Jewish  nation  unmixed  with 
surrounding  heathen  nations. 

Circumcision,  then,  is  to  be  viewed  in  the 
light  of  a  second  register,  fixing  upon  every 
male  of  the  Jewish  nation,  an  indelible  mark, 
by  which  he  might  be  known  as  belonging  to 
the  house  and  lineage  of  Abraham. 

Hence  Abraham,  by  faithfully  observing  his 
part  of  the  covenant,  in  circumcising  every 
man-child  in  his  house,  and  all  who  became 
identified  with  the  Jewish  nation,  could  realize 
and  should  be  able  to  acknowledge  in  the  end, 
that  Jehovah  had  performed  his  part  of  the 
covenant,  in  giving  to  him,  and  his  seed  after 
him,    all  the   land  of  Canaan.     By   this   he 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 


295 


should  know  who  were  his  seed,  and  who 
were  not;  who  had  a  right  to  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, and  who  had  not. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  circumci- 
sion was  a  token  or  a  sign  of  a  covenant  whose 
object  was  the  preservation  of  the  male  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  from  uniting  with 
other  nations,  and  hereby  lose  their  national 
distinction. 

And  it  is  in  this  light  that  the  most  intelli- 
gent Jews  understood  the  nature  and  design 
of  circumcision.  Josephus,  the  learned  histo- 
rian of  his  own  nation,  and  better  uninspired 
testimony  on  this  point,  the  world  cannot 
afford,  says:  "God  showed  Abraham,  that 
from  his  son  Isaac  should  spring  great  nations 
and  kings,  and  that  they  should  obtain  all  the 
land  of  Canaan  by  war,  from  Sidon  to  Egypt. 
But  he  charged  him  in  order  to  keep  his  poste- 
rity unmixed  with  others,  that  they  should  be 
circumcised.     B.  I.  chap.  x.  §  5. 

Witsius.  "  The  descendants  of  Abraham 
were  separated  by  circumcision  from  other 
nations,  and  renounced  their  friendship;  as 
appears  from  the  open  declaration  of  the  sons 
of  Jacob,  Gen.  xxxiv.  14,  15.  A  circumcised 
person,  say  the  Jews,  '  has  withdrawn  himself 
from  the  whole  body  of  the  nations.'  And, 
indeed,  circumcision  was  a  great  part,  and  as 
it  were  the  foundation  of  the  middle  wall 
of  partition."  Econ.  of  the  Cov.  Book  iv.  ch. 
8,  $  20. 


296  INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 

Cattenburgh  says:  "Principally  circumci- 
sion was  a  discriminating  mark  of  the  Jews 
from  other  nations ;  whereas  baptism  tends  to 
unite  all  nations  in  one  body." 

And  yet  further,  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion answered  its  national  design ;  and  with 
the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation,  itself  was 
destroyed,  having  been  fulfilled.  And  even 
while  that  nation  had  yet  an  existence,  as  in 
the  days  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  we  are 
taught  by  the  Spirit  that  circumcision  was 
nothing  to  Christian  converts.  "  Circumci- 
sion is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  no- 
thing." 1  Cor.  vii.  18,  10.  Paul,  moreover, 
made  no  account  of  it  whatever.  Phil.  iii. 
4—11.     John  vii.  2.     Acts  xv.  24.* 

Mr.  Erskine.  "  When  God  promised  the 
land  of  Canaan  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  cir- 
cumcision was  instituted  for  this,  among  other 
purposes,  to  show  that  descent  from  Abraham 
was  the  foundation  of  his  posterity's  right  to 
those  blessings."     Theolog.  Dissert,  p.  9. 

Again.  The  covenant  of  circumcision  had 
special  regard  to  the  numerous  posterity  of 
Abraham,  in  their  being  kept  unmixed  with 
other  nations,  both  before  and  while  in  actual 

*  "The  Jews,"  says  Ammonias,  as  cited  by  Dean  Pri- 
deaux,  at  the  year  129,  "  The  Jews  are  such  by  nature, 
and  from  the  beginning-,  while  the  Idumeans  were  not 
Jews  from  the  beginning*,  but  Phoenicians  and  Syrians; 
but  being  afterwards  subdued  by  the  Jews,  and  compelled 
to  be  circumcised,  and  to  unite  into  one  natio7it  and  be  sub- 
ject to  the  same  laws,  they  were  called  Jews. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 


297 


possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  God, 
all  this  while,  had  another  distinct  object  in 
view  in  keeping  this  nation  separate  and  un- 
mixed. 

The  Messiah  was  to  be  of  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  through  Isaac.  And  that  his  gene- 
alogy might  be  distinctly  traced  through  suc- 
cessive generations  up  to  Abraham,  it  was 
strictly  enjoined  upon  the  Jews  to  keep  a  pub- 
lic register  of  all  the  names  of  the  male  part 
of  that  nation,  and  to  record  the  same  in  their 
national  archives.  Once  more,  the  Apostle 
calls  circumcision  a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith."  Rom.  iv.  11.  But  this  faith 
went  before  the  covenant  of  circumcision  had 
been  given ;  and  was  hence  a  faith  distinct 
from  that  of  possessing  the  land  of  Canaan.  It 
was  the  faith  which  embraced  the  Messiah, 
the  end  of  which  was  the  salvation  of  his 
soul.  In  this  faith  he  became  "  the  father  of 
all  them  that  believe."  True  believers  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  no  one  else.  "  Know  ye,  there- 
fore, that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same 
are  the  children  of  Abraham.  And  if  ye  be 
Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  Gala.  iii. 
7,  29. 

Such  we  most  gladly  welcome  to  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  church  of  Christ  and  none 
others.  For  such  are  sealed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  have,  therefore,  a  right  to  be- 
lievers' baptism.     Hence  says, 


298 


INFANT  BAPTISM  INFERRED. 


Venema.  "  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  as  the  Apostle  affirms; 
but  this  only  in  respect  of  such  Israelites  as 
were  believers."  In  Pedobap.  Exam.  Vol. 
if.  p.  268. 

Goodwin.  "  Baptism  supposes  regenera- 
tion sure  in  itself  first.  Sacraments  are  never 
administered  to  begin,  or  irork  grace.  Read 
ALL  the  Acts,  still  it  is  said,  they  believed  and 
were  baptized."     Works,  Vol.  i.  P.  i.  p.  200. 

Mr.  T.  Boston.  "  There  is  no  example  of 
baptism  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  where 
any  were  baptized  but  such  as  appeared  to 
have  a  saving  interest  in  Christ."  Works,  p. 
384. 

Limborch.  "  There  is  no  instance  can  be 
produced,  from  which  it  may  indisputably  be 
inferred  that  any  child  was  baptized  by  the 
Apostles."     Complete  Syst.  Div.  b.  v.  ch.  xxii. 

2  Cor.  i.  22.  "  Who  hath  also  sealed  us, 
and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our 
hearts." 

Eph.  i.  13.  "Ye  were  sealed  with  that 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise." 

Eph.  iv.  30.  "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  re- 
demption." 

Charnock.  "  God  seals  no  more  than  he 
promises.  He  promises  only  to  faith,  and 
therefore  only  seals  to  faith.  Covenant  graces, 
therefore,  must  be  possessed  and  acted,  before 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  299 

covenant  blessings  be  ratified  to  us."  Works, 
Vol.  ii.  p781,ed.  1. 

Vitringa.  "  The  sacraments  of  the  new 
covenant  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  seal  no- 
thing but  what  is  spiritual,  nor  to  be  of  any 
advantage,  except  in  regard  to  those  who 
really  believe  in  Jesus  Christ."  In  Ped.  Exam. 
Vol.  ii.  p.  268. 

No  one,  after  reading  the  above,  can  plead 
that  baptism  comes  in  the  room  of  circumci- 
sion, and  thence  infer  infant  baptism,  without 
certain  convictions  of  conscience,  that  he  is 
pleading  what  is  not  true. 


Section  VI. 

INFANT   BAPTISM    INFERRED    FROM    THREE    INSTANCES    OF 
HOUSEHOLD    BAPTISM. 

You  will  bear  in  mind  that  no  inference, 
however  well  founded,  can  establish  a  positive 
institution.  There  must  be  direct  testimony, 
drawn  from  the  inspired  writings,  to  support 
the  instituted  part  of  Divine  worship.  Plain 
commands,  or  examples,  and  not  probabilities 
and  suppositions,  are  what  Pedobaptists  them- 
selves demand  of  Romanists,  when  contending 
with  them  against  their  numerous  errors  and 
superstitions. 

Surely  they  ought  not  to  blame  us  for  asking 


300 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 


no  more  of  them,  in  support  of  infant  baptism, 
than  they  peremptorily  ask  and  demand  of 
Romanists,  in  support  of  transubstantiation,  or 
any  other  error  of  the  Romish  Church.  Some 
of  our  most  able  and  learned  Pedobaptists 
have  the  frankness  to  acknowledge,  that  there 
is  no  plain  command,  nor  yet  example,  in  the 
Word  of  God,  for  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism.  They  further  acknowledge  that, 
"The  proof,  then,  that  it  is  a  Divine  institution 
must  be  made  out  some  other  way." — Dr. 
Wood's  Lectures,  p.  11. 

Another  of  the  popular  writers  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  ranks,  has  informed  us  of  this  other 
way,  as  follows:  "I  do  not  pretend  to  ground 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism  on  any  plain  po- 
sitive command."  "Baptism  must  not  rest 
upon  the  instructions  of  the  Word  of  God,  but 
upon  probabilities,  inferences,  human  reason- 
ing, and  consequences" 

What  better  ground  can  be  asked  in  favour 
of  all  and  every  innovation  that  have  ever 
affected  the  Zion  of  God  ? 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Romanists  retort  upon 
the  Pedobaptists,  when  canvassing  each  others 
errors. 

In  the  late  controversy  between  Messrs. 
Hughes,  a  Romanist,  and  Breckenridge,  a  Pres- 
byterian, on  the  subject,  "  Is  the  Protestant 
religion  the  religion  of  Christ?  the  Romanist 
places  his  Pedobaptist  antagonist  in  a  most 
unhappy  position,  especially  so,  when  we  con- 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  3qj 

sider  the  vast  importance  of  the  proposition  in 
debate.  No  good  man  can  read  it  without 
deep  and  sorrowful  emotions  of  soul.  Mr. 
Hughes  remarks: 

"  The  next  evidence  I  shall  produce  in  sup- 
port of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  and  against 
the  Protestant  principle,  is  derived  from  a 
source  which  I  am  sure  you  will  respect.  It 
is  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  your  own 
Church,  laid  down  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession. The  first  is  the  baptism  of  infants, 
sanctioned  by  the  "  teachings"  of  the  pastors  of 
the  Church,  but  certainly  not  susceptible  of  proof 
by  any  text  of  sacred  Scripture." — Contro.  pp. 
47,  48. 

When,  O  when,  shall  our  brethren,  who  con- 
tend for  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  aban- 
don these  errors,  supported  on  no  better 
ground  than  the  grossest  errors  of  the  Papal 
Ci  urch  !  !* 

But  let  us  examine  a  little  into  those  house- 
holds, which  were  baptized,  and  which  are 
supposed  to  include  infants. 

The  first  household  baptism  mentioned  in 
the  Bible,  is  recorded  by  Luke,  as  follows: 


*  Mr.  T.  Mag-uire,  a  learned  Roman  Catholic,  when 
discussing-  with  Mr.  Rich.  T.  P.  Pope,  the  doctrines  of 
the  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic  relig-ions,  asks  his  op- 
ponent as  follows:  M  If  the  Bible  exclusively  contains  the 
word  of  God,  will  Mr.  Pope  show  us  from  the  Bible, 
that  infants  may  be  baptized  contrary  to  the  practice  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  ?"  p.  101. 
26 


302  HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

Acts  xvi.  13.  And  on  the  Sabbath  we  went 
out  of  the  city  by  a  river  side,  where  prayer 
was  wont  to  be  made;  and  we  sat  down,  and 
spake  unto  the  women  which  resorted  thither. 
14.  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a 
seller  of  purple,  of  the  cily  of  Thyatira,  which 
worshipped  God,  heard  us;  whose  heart  the 
Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  15,  And  when 
she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  be- 
sought us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and 
abide  there.    And  she  constrained  us. 

49.  And  they  [that  is,  Paul  and  Silas,] 
went  out  of  the  prison  and  entered  into  the 
house  of  hy dm;  and  when  they  had  seen  the 
brethren,  they  comforted  them,  and  departed. 

To  make  out  that  Lydia's  household  con- 
sisted, in  part,  of  infants,  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  have  to  call  to  their  aid  the  rule  of 
interpretation  which  they  have  adopted,  of 
supposing  one  thing,  and  from  it  inferring 
another;  by  the  applicability  of  which  they 
suppose  Lydia's  household  contained  infants, 
and  then  infer  that  these  infants  were  baptized. 

We  shall  examine  a  little  into  the  correctness 
of  the  suppositions  which  must  necessarily  be 
raised  from  this  Scripture,  in  order  to  make  it 
justify  infant  baptism. 

1.  They  suppose  that  the  word  house,  or 
household,  in  Scripture  usage,  includes  all  of  a 
family.    Such  a  supposition  doe6  not  hold  good. 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  3Q3 

We  may,  in  general  terms,  say,  a  whole 
family  were  at  church  last  Lord's  Day,  when 
we  do  not  mean  every  individual  of  the  family, 
but  such  as  were  capable  of  going  and  hearing 
the  word  of  life. 

Now  this  was  a  very  common  manner  of 
speaking  among  the  ancients.  A  very  appro- 
priate example  of  the  kind  is  furnished  us  in 
1  Sam.  i.  21,  22.  "  And  the  man  Elkanah,  and 
all  his  house,  went  up  to  offer  unto  the  Lord 
the  yearly  sacrifice,  and  his  vow.  But  Hannah 
went  not  up;  for  she  said  unto  her  husband,  I 
will  not  go  up  until  the  child  be  weaned." 

2.  Another  supposition,  necessary  to  the 
purpose  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  is,  that 
there  cannot  he  such  a  thing  as  all  in  a  house, 
i.  e.  a  household,  converted  to  God,  and  de- 
voted to  Christ. 

Now  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  have  been 
exceedingly  unhappy  in  their  supposition ;  for 
it  is  a  thing  possible,  and  even  quite  common, 
for  entire  families  to  be  turned  to  the  Lord. 

Several  instances  of  the  kind  are  furnished 
us  in  the  Bible.  As,  for  example,  Mary  and 
Martha,  the  sisters  of  Lazarus,  were  keeping 
house,  whose  love  to  the  Saviour,  at  all  times, 
made  him  a  welcome  guest  under  their  hos- 
pitable roof. — Luke  x.  38 — 42. 

Again,  we  are  told  of  a  certain  nobleman 
who  besought  the  Saviour  to  heal  his  son,  that 
"  the  father  himself  believed,  and  his  whole 
house." — John  iv.  53. 


304  HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

Once  more:  "And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler 
of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord,  with 
all  his  house,  and  many  of  the  Corinthians, 
hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized. — Acts 
xviii.  8. 

Added  to  these,  there  are  many  households 
within  the  circle  of  my  own  acquaintance,  who 
are  among  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus. 

3.  A  third  supposition  becomes  necessary, 
in  order  that  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  may 
assist  themselves  in  sustaining  the  notion  of 
infant  baptism  from  this  Scripture,  viz.,  that 
there  can  be  no  household  without  being  com- 
posed, in  part,  of  infants. 

If  such  a  supposition  be  well  founded,  then, 
of  course,  Lydia  must  have  had  infants  in  her 
family.  But,  my  friends,  are  there  nut  whole 
families  in  every  community,  and  especially 
in  our  chief  towns  and  cities,  which  have  no  in- 
fants? Cannot  most  of  you  call  up  to  recol- 
lection some  family,  in  the  circle  of  your  ac- 
quaintance, which  is  composed  entirely  of 
adult  persons? 

Follow  along  in  your  imagination,  if  you 
please,  the  families  which  reside  on  the  street 
passing  the  house  in  which  we  are  now  assem- 
bled; commencing  with  Mrs.  Betts,  and  taking 
every  household  in  succession — Mr.  Cannon's, 
Mrs.  Grummon's,  Mr.  Turney's,  Miss  Jarvis', 
&c.  Here  are  no  less  than  five  families,  all 
following  in  consecutive  order,  without  infants 
connected  with  any  one  of  them.     And  yet  it 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  3Q5 

is  thought  a  thing  quite  improbable,  if  not,  in- 
deed, impossible,  for  Mistress  Lydia  to  have 
no  infants  in  her  house. 

So  much  stress  do  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
put  upon  Lydia's  household,  as  to  make  it  one 
of  the  cogent  arguments  in  support  of  infant 
baptism. 

4.  Another  supposition  is,  that  Lydia  had  an 
infant  babe.  Of  course  she  must  have  had  an 
infant  with  her,  if,  as  it  is  supposed,  she  had 
one  baptized.  But  it  is  but  a  supposition  at 
best;  and  a  supposition,  too,  quite  improbable, 
when  we  consider  her  vocation,  and  present 
residence. 

Lydia  was  a  "  seller  of  purple,"  a  very  com- 
mon and  honourable  calling  with  the  ladies  of 
Thyatira  and  vicinity,  as  history  informs  us, 
who  found  it  both  an  agreeable  and  successful 
livelihood,  and  one  often  resorted  to  by  maiden 
ladies,  but  seldom  by  mothers,  because  it  re- 
quired those  who  engaged  in  it  to  be  much  from 
home.  Hence  Lydia  was  a  sojourner  at  Phi- 
lippi,  a  city  of  Macedonia,  on  the  river  Stry- 
mon,  and  distant  from  Thyatira,  her  native 
town,  about  three  hundred  miles. 

Lydia  was  enjoying  but  a  temporary  abode 
at  Philippi,  making  sales  of  her  silks,  and,  after 
the  business  season  was  over,  destined  to  re- 
turn to  her  native  place. 

To  me  it  appears  highly  improbable  that  she 
had  infant  children  at  all ;   or  if  she  had,  that 
26* 


30ft  HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

she  took  them  with  her  on  a  journey  of  so  great 
a  distance. 

What  renders  it  still  more  likely  that  she  was 
a  maiden  lady,  is,  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
her  husband;  a  very  singular  omission,  indeed, 
if  we  suppose  her  in  social  life.  And  yet 
further;  she  is  spoken  of  as  having  the  entire 
control  of  the  family.  If  she  had  a  husband, 
he  must  have  been  a  very  indifferent  one,  and 
she  must  have  ruled  over  him,  or  how  could 
she  say  to  the  Apostles,  "  Come  into  my  house 
and  abide  there,"  when  as  yet  her  supposed 
husband  was  unconverted,  and  by  his  wife,  too, 
unconsulted  whether  she  might  introduce  into 
his  family  these  strange  missionaries  of  the 
despised  Nazarene?  Indeed,  it  appears  quite 
certain,  that  Lydia  was  a  maiden  lady,  con- 
ducting the  concerns  of  her  own  house,  and 
her  mercantile  affairs,  by  the  aid  of  servants 
and  clerks. 

5.  In  the  last  place,  even  should  it  be  granted 
to  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  that  Lydia's  house- 
hold was  composed  partly  of  infants,  they  must 
suppose  that  these  infants  were  baptized;  for 
it  does  not  follow  that  a  household,  or  all  in  a 
house,  must  necessarily  include  every  indivi- 
dual of  a  family,  as  is  evident  from  I  Sam.  i. 
21,  22. 

That  Lydia  herself  was  a  fit  subject  for  bap- 
tism, none  pretends  to  dispute;  and  with  much 
the  same  evidence  must  we  believe  that  her 
entire  family  had  their  hearts  opened  of  the 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  307 

Lord,  that  they  attended  unto  the  things  which 
were  spoken  of  Paul,  since  they  are  called 
"  brethren"  whom  Paul  and  Silas  "  comforted" 
or  as  Dr.  Doddridge  says,  "  comforted  and  ex- 
horted them." 

Mr.  Whitby.  "  And  when  she,  and  those 
of  her  household,  were  instructed  in  the 
Christian  faith,  in  the  nature  of  baptism  re- 
quired by  it,  she  was  baptized  and  her  house- 
hold. "   Paraphrase  on  the  place. 

Limborch.  "  An  undoubted  argument,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  drawn  from  this  instance,  by 
which  it  may  be  demonstrated,  that  infants 
were  baptized  by  the  Apostles.  It  might  be, 
that  all  in  her  house  were  of  a  mature  age; 
who,  as  in  the  exercise  of  a  right  understand- 
ing they  believed,  so  they  were  able  to  make 
a  public  profession  of  that  faith  when  they  re- 
ceived baptism." — Comment,  in  loco.  In  Pa>- 
dobap.  Ex.  vol.  ii.  p.  359. 

Mr.  T.  Lawson,  referring  to  this  argument, 
says,  "  Families  may  be  without  children  ;  they 
may  be  grown  up,  &c.  So  it  is  a  wild  infer- 
ence to  ground  infant  baptism  upon." — Bap- 
tismalogia,  p.  92. 

The   secoivd    household    baptism   which  is 

RECORDED  IN   SCRIPTURE,  IS    FOUND  IN    Acts    Xvi. 

29.  Then  he  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang  in, 
and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  before  Paul 
and  Silas.  30.  And  brought  them  out  and 
said,  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  31.  And 
they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 


308 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 


and    thou    shalt    be    saved,   and    thy   house. 

32.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. 

33.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the 
night,  and  washed  their  stripes;  and  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his,  straightway.  34.  And  when 
he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set 
meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God  with  all  his  house. 

We  may  know  of  whom  the  jailer's  house- 
hold was  composed,  by  a  careful  reading  of 
the  account  as  given  by  the  historian  Luke; 
particularly  marking  the  32  and  34  verses. 
"And  they  (Paul  and  Silas)  spake  unto  him 
(the  jailer)  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all 
that  wtere  in  his  house." — "And  rejoiced, 
believing  in  God  with  all  his  house."  All  in 
the  jailer's  house  had  the  word  of  life  addressed 
to  them,  and  all  believed,  and  all  were  baptized. 

Only  by  the  skill  of  raising  suppositions,  as 
in  the  case  of  Lydia's  household,  can  it  be 
made  out  that  the  jailer  had  infants,  and  had 
them  baptized. 

Doddridge.  "  Thou  shalt  he  saved,  and  thine 
house.  The  meaning  cannot  be  that  the  eter- 
nal salvation  of  his  family  could  be  secured  by 
his  faith;  but  that — if  they  also  themselves 
believed,  they  should  be  entitled  to  the  same 
spiritual  and  everlasting  blessings  with  himself; 
which  Paul  might  the  rather  add,  as  it  is  pro- 
bable that  many  of  them,  under  this  terrible 
alarm,  might  have  attended  the  master  of  the 


HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM.  309 

family  into  the  dungeon." — Fam.  Expos.  Note 
on  the  place. 

Matthew  Henry.  "  The  voice  of  rejoicing, 
with  that  of  salvation,  was  heard  in  the  jailer's 
house — He  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all 
his  house :  there  was  none  in  his  house  that 
refused  to  be  baptized,  and  so  made  a  jar  in 
the  ceremony,  but  they  were  unanimous  in  em- 
bracing the  gospel,  which  added  much  to  the 
joy. — Expos,  on  the  place. 

Calvin  is  still  more  expressive.  "Luke com- 
mends the  pious  zeal  of  the  jailer,  because  he 
dedicated  his  whole  house  to  the  Lord;  in 
which,  also,  the  grace  of  God  illustriously  ap- 
peared, because  it  suddenly  brought  the  whole 
family  to  a  pious  consent." — Comment,  in  loco. 

The  household  of  Stephanas. 

This  is  the  third  and  last  household  baptism 
mentioned  in  our  Sacred  Writings.  I  desire 
you  to  be  your  own  judges,  whether  it  can  in 
any  justice  be  plead  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism. This  is  the  record  of  it  as  furnished  us 
by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

"  And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stepha- 
nas:' 1  Cor.  i.  16. 

As  no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  infants, 
in  this  Scripture,  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  can 
turn  it  to  their  account  only  by  their  accredited 
adroitness  in  raising  suppositions,  and  upon 
these  predicate  the  notion  of  infant  baptism. 

After  what  has  been  said  respecting  such 
suppositions,  when  considering  the  household 


310  HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

of  Lydia,  all  that  can  be  necessary  here  is  to 
quote  a  single  passage  which  sufficiently  sets 
forth  the  characters  of  those  composing  this 
household.  The  Scripture  to  which  I  refer  is 
recorded  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  15,  16,  and  reads  as 
follows:  "Ye  know  the  house  of  {Stephanas, 
that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that 
they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  saints,  that  ye  submit  yourselves  unto  such, 
and  to  every  one  that  kelpeth  with  us  and  la- 
boureth." 

I  will  only  subjoin  some  few  just  concessions 
of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  in  which  the  sense 
of  the  passage  is  judiciously  explained. 

Doddridge.  "  They  have  set  themselves,  Src. 
This  seems  to  imply,  that  it  was  the  generous 
care  of  the  whole  family  to  assist  their  fellow 
Christians;  so  that  there  was  not  a  member  of 
it  which  did  not  do  its  part." — Fam.  Expos. 
Note  on  the  place. 

Guise.  "  It  therefore  seems  that  the  family 
of  Stephanas  were  all  adult  believers,  and  so 
were  baptized  on  their  own  personal  profes- 
sion of  faith  in  Christ." —  On  the  place. 

Hammond.  "  I  think  it  unreasonable  that  the 
Apostle's  bare  mention  of  baptizing  his  [Ste- 
phanas'] household,  should  be  thought  compe- 
tent to  conclude  that  infants  were  baptized  by 
him  ;  when  it  is  uncertain  whether  there  were 
any  such  at  all  in  his  house." — Works,  vol.  i. 
p.  492.     In  Peed.  Exam.  vol.  ii.  p.  358. 

Macknight.    "  The  family  of  Stephanas  seem 


REASONS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM.  3jj 

all  to  have  been  adults  when  they  were  bap- 
tized, for  they  are  said,  chap.  xvi.  15,  to  have 
devoted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints." 
Apos.  Epis.    Note  on  1  Cor.  i.  16. 

We  have  now  examined,  impartially,  those 
Scriptures,  traditions,  and  principles  of  in- 
terpretation,  by  which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
attempt  to  sustain,  in  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  infant  baptism,  as  an  instituted  part  of 
religious  worship ;  and  we  can  find  not  one 
substantial  reason — no,  not  even  from  tradition 
— which  can  afford  any  sufficient  plea  for  a 
notion,  which  they  acknowledge  has  no  ex- 
press command,  nor  vet  example  in  the  Word 
of  God. 


CHAPTER  II?. 

DIRECT  AND  POSITIVE  REASONS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  discussion  of  the  subject  of  sprinkling 
for  baptism,  and  infants  for  subjects,  involves 
much  more  than  the  mere  mode  of  an  exter- 
nal ceremony,  or  than  the  simple  question 
"who  may  be  admitted  to  the  sacred  rite?" 

It  reaches  to  the  question  agitated  in  the 
days  of  our  Saviour's  humiliation,  whether  the 
authority  of  God's  word,  or  that  of  tradition 
and  human  policy  shall  have  the  supremacy  1 
It  involves  the  questions  whether  the  preju- 


312  ARGUMENTS  ELICITED 

dices  and  notions  of  men,  or  the  commands  of 
Jesus  shall  be  respected  and  obeyed?  whether 
it  be  right  to  accommodate  the  doctrines  and 
institutions  of  the  gospel  to  the  pride  and  pre- 
dilections of  erring  mortals?  whether  the  Pope 
of  Rome,  or  the  King  in  Zion  shall  have  domin- 
ion in  the  church,  and  dictate  the  order  and 
manner  of  divine  worship?  whether  the  church 
shall  be  amalgamated  with  the  world,  or  pre- 
served separate  and  distinct  as  a  body  chosen 
out  of  the  world,  and  designed  to  be  a  peculiar 
people  ?  whether,  in  fine,  she  shall  be  a  spiri- 
tual church,  whose  aim  is  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  salvation  of  souls,  or  a  secular  and 
national  church,  devoted  to  the  selfish  and  am- 
bitious aims  of  proud  and  aspiring  demagogues? 


Section  I. 

THE  SPIRIT,  AS   WELL   AS  THE   ARGUMENTS    ELICITED    BY 
INFANT  BAPTISM,  IS  UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

If  any  thing  may  be  known  by  its  fruit,  then 
may  we  safely  judge  sprinkling  and  infant  bap- 
tism to  be  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  religion 
of  Christ,  because  of  the  passions  they  call 
forth. 

I  have  previously  shown,  that  the  arguments 
by  which  infant  baptism  and  sprinkling  are 
supported,   are  entirely   anti-Scriptural,   and 


UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  gjg 

also,  that  the  spirit  manifested  in  sustaining 
these  erroneous  practices,  is  alike  foreign  from 
that  spirit  of  meekness,  kindness,  and  forbear- 
ance, which  was  so  eminently  characteristic 
of  our  blessed  Saviour. 

But  additional  remarks,  upon  the  same  sub- 
jects, have  been  reserved  for  a  separate  para- 
graph in  this  place.  And  these  I  should  be 
glad  to  omit,  were  it  not  for  the  hope  that  they 
may  tend  to  dissuade  any  hereafter  from  the 
use  of  such  unlovely  arguments  in  support  of 
their  assumed  notions. 

I  should  be  sorry  if  the  following  remarks 
should  wound  unnecessarily  the  feelings  of  any 
one  who  hears  me.  Should  any  feel  aggrieved, 
I  can  only  say  I  certainly  ought  not  to  be  cen- 
sured for  rehearsing  arguments  which  our  Pe- 
dobaptist  brethren  so  frequently  employ  in  sup- 
port of  their  peculiar  practices.  Nor  should 
they  ever  make  use  of  arguments  in  per- 
suading young  converts  to  embrace  their  sen- 
timents, which  they  would  feel  aggrieved  to 
have  brought  to  the  view  of  others.  I  ought, 
in  justice,  acknowledge,  and  do  it  with  great 
pleasure,  that  many  of  my  Pedobaptist  breth- 
ren are  above  employing  such  arguments  in 
support  of  their  views.  These  are  more  no- 
ble, pious,  and  manly  than  many  others,  who, 
contending  for  the  same  practices,  descend  to 
a  course  of  reasoning  unworthy  the  dignity  of 
an  intelligent  being,  to  say  nothing  of  one  pro- 
fessing the  religion  of  Jesus. 
27 


314 


ARGUMENTS  ELICITED 


It  is  not  an  unfrequent  method  with  some, 
when  dissuading  the  youthful  convert,  who  has 
been  sprinkled  in  infancy,  from  following  the 
convictions  of  an  enlightened  conscience,  and 
from  a  faithful  imitation  of  his  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter, in  being  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  to 
employ  reasoning  the  most  unhappy  and  un- 
christian. 

The  inquiring  convert  is  told,  that  he  was 
baptized  in  infancy  ;  that  then  he  took,  by  the 
promise  of  others,  the  solemn  vows  upon  him- 
self, and  that  he  ought  not  to  be  baptized  again; 
that  if  he  does,  he  will  deny  his  former  bap- 
tism, and  also  the  faith  of  his  sponsors  or  pa- 
rents, and  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost ! 

Now,  any  person  who  can  deal  thus  rudely 
with  the  disciples  of  Christ,  must  be  void,  at 
least,  of  some  of  the  ennobling  principles  of 
Christianity.  Such  duplicity,  chicanery,  and 
rude  artifice  employed  over  the  tender  con- 
sciences of  the  unsuspecting,  and  such  disre- 
gard to  the  tender  emotions  of  the  lambs  of 
Christ,  illy  become  an  ambassador  of  peace. 

And  by  just  such  arguments  are  thousands 
kept  from  following  the  footsteps  of  their  Sa- 
viour. But  let  such  converts  know  that  they 
cannot  better  please  their  divine  Lord  and 
subserve  the  cause  of  truth,  than  to  break  away 
from  restraints  so  unjustly  imposed  upon  their 
credulity,  and  come  forth  and  act  for  them- 
selves, according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own 
consciences,  enlightened  by  the  word  of  God. 


UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  315 

Again,  there  are  not  a  few  who  are  disen- 
genuous  enough  to  make  use  of  opprobrious 
language,  and  even  of  low  artifice  in  order  to 
dissuade  the  unsuspecting  convert  from  a  faith- 
ful compliance  with  his  Lord's  command  to 
be  baptized  on  profession  of  his  faith. 

What  they  want  in  fair  argument  is  supplied 
by  scurrility  and  chicanery.  Taking  advan- 
tage of  the  corruptions  of  human  nature,  and 
addressing  themselves  to  the  vile  passions  of 
the  soul,  they  think  to  justify  themselves  in  the 
practice  of  those  things,  for  which  they  acknow- 
ledge they  have  no  express  command,  nor  yet 
example  in  the  inspired  writings. 

I  sincerely  pity  the  man  who  is  so  pressed 
for  sound  argument  as  to  be  prevailed  upon  to 
step  aside  from  the  plain  principles  of  interpre- 
tation and  Christian  gentility,  to  have  recourse 
to  the  power  of  ridicule  and  human  ingenuity 
in  defence  of  his  faith  and  practice. 

The  more  deeply  is  such  a  course  to  be  de- 
plored, when  it  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
subject  of  religion,  and  especially  when  it  is 
resorted  to  by  professing  Christians. 

It  is  enough  to  be  deprecated,  that  such  a 
course  should  obtain  among  the  political  fac- 
tions of  the  day.  Is  it  not  enough  that  the  ir- 
religious and  profane  should  take  refuge  in 
ridicule?  Must  Christians  copy  examples  so 
unworthy  their  vocation,  and  lend  their  influ- 
ence in  support  of  a  course  of  reasoning  so 
entirely  irrelevant  to  the  dignity  and  sanctity 


316  ARGUMENTS  ELTCITED 

of  our  holy  religion,  and  so  incompatible  with 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  1 
Shall  the  professed  followers  of  Jesus  so  far 
lose  the  spirit  of  their  divine  Master,  who  was 
meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  as  to  be  found  making 
appeals  to  the  pride  and  selfishness  of  man  in 
support  of  their  favourite  opinions? 

I  rejoice  that  Baptists  are  reduced  to  no 
such  necessity  in  sustaining  their  religious 
sentiments.  Baptists  make  no  appeals  to  the 
unsanctified  passions  of  the  soul,  in  order  to 
persuade  men  to  copy  the  example  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  They  choose  rather  to  mor- 
tify than  to  feed,  the  proud  arrogance  of  men. 
They  had  rather  put  an  extinguisher  upon  the 
unhallowed  passions,  than  to  apply  the  bellows 
to  increase  them  to  a  more  vehement  flame. 
And  in  this  too,  Baptists  are  confident  that  they 
have  Christ  for  their  great  exemplar,  and  the 
apostles  as  their  fellow-copyists. 

They  reject,  utterly,  ridicule,  as  argument, 
and  artifice,  as  testimony,  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. 

What  cannot  be  substantiated  by  sound  phi- 
lological principles,  and  plain  Scripture  proof, 
let  it  fall,  and  be  forever  rejected,  as  unworthy 
the  suffrage  of  Christians.  Indeed,  ridicule  is 
generally  resorted  to  where  sound  argument  is 
wanting.  Well  was  it  observed  by  a  popular 
writer  of  our  own  times.  "  It  is  said  that 
ridicule  is  the  test  of  truth  !  It  is  never  ap- 
plied, but  when  ive  wish  to  deceive  ourselves'  or 


UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT    OF  THE  GOSPEL.  3^7 

others ;  when,  if  ice  cannot  exclude  the  light, 
we  are  fain  to  draw  a  curtain  before  it.  The 
sneer  springs  out  of  the  icish  to  deny;  and 
wretched  must  be  the  state  of  that  mind  which 
desires  to  take  refuge  in  doubt!  But  the  in- 
stinct of  right  and  wrong  is  immutable;  all 
other  voices  may  be  silenced,  but  not  that  in 
ourselves." 

Conscience  must  speak.  She  maybe  disre- 
garded: her  warning  voice  may  be  unheeded, 
and  for  a  time  put  to  silence  ;  yet,  there  are 
intervals  when  she  must  be  heard.  The  fewer 
these  intervals,  and  the  less  audible  her.  voice, 
the  stronger  the  proof  that  the  more  unre- 
strained depravity  reigns  in  the  heart  where 
she  utters  her  note  of  remonstrance.  Much  to 
be  pitied  is  that  man  who  can  say  no,  to  her 
biddings,  or  not  to  stop  at  her  prohibitions  ! 
All  should  follow  the  convictions  of  a  tender 
and  enlightened  conscience,  for  she  pleads  for 
God  and  for  the  rights  of  men. 

Once  more,  detraction  and  misrepresentation 
are  called  forward  in  support  of  sprinkling  and 
Pedobaptism  ! 

With  a  view  to  lessen  the  reputation  of  Bap- 
tists in  the  estimation  of  others,  and  hence  to 
dissuade  others  from  embracing  their  senti- 
ments and  uniting  in  their  communion,  the 
darkest  aspersion  that  invidiousness  and  inge- 
nuity could  invent,  has  been  cast  upon  them. 
No  reproachful  epithet,  promising  to  detract 
from  Baptist  reputation,  to  defame  their  moral 
27* 


318 


ARGUMENTS  ELICITED 


and  religious  characters,  and  to  hinder  their 
advancing  prosperity,  has  been  withheld. 

And  so  the  doctrines  of  the  Baptist  Church 
have  alike  been  entirely  misrepresented,  and 
held  out  before  the  public  in  a  way  equally 
calculated  to  do  injustice  both  to  the  truths  of 
the  Bible,  and  to  the  Baptist  denomination. 
Such  an  unchristianlike  course,  I  am  happy  in 
having  it  to  say,  is  highly  disapproved  of  by 
many  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren.  These 
have  more  of  the  gentleman  and  the  Christian 
than  to  be  found  designingly  detracting  from 
other's  reputation,  and  misrepresenting  other's 
sentiments  for  the  sake  of  sustaining  their  own. 
But  others  there  are,  who  make  use  of  any  ar- 
gument, however  false,  and  at  whatever  ex- 
pense of  their  neighbour's  reputation,  if,  by 
such  means,  they  can  sustain  sprinkling,  and 
infant  baptism.  Speaking  of  these  last,  Mr. 
Wall  remarks:  "This  {immersion)  is  so  plain 
and  clear  by  an  infinite  number  of  passages, 
that  as  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endea- 
vours of  such  Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain 
the  negative  of  it,  so  we  ought  to  disown  and 
show  a  dislike  of  the  profane  scoffs,  which 
some  people  give  to  the  English  Baptists, 
merely  for  the  use  of  dipping;  when  it  was, 
in  all  probability,  the  way  by  which  our  bless 
ed  Saviour,  and  for  certain  was  the  most 
usual  and  ordinary  way  by  which  the  ancient 
Christians  did  receive  their  baptism."  Hist,  of 
Inf.  Bap.  Pt.  2,  C.  9,  §  2. 


UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT  OP  THE  GOSPEL.  gjg 

Because  Baptists  believe  not  in,  nor  prac- 
tice infant  baptism,  their  Pedobaptist  brethren 
have  taken  the  liberty  to  represent  them  to  the 
world,  as  believing  in  infant  damnation  ! !  ! 
Because  Baptists  believe  not  in  a  union  of 
church  and  state,  their  brethren  of  other  deno- 
minations have  presented  them  before  the 
world,  as  disposed  to  insubordination  and 
discord!  Because  Baptists  do  not  admit 
sprinkling  to  be  Christian  baptism,  they  are 
represented  as  believing  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  salvation  !!  Because  Baptists  receive 
none  into  their  church,  and  of  course  admit 
none  to  their  communion,  unless  they  give 
evidence  of  vital,  personal  piety,  and  have 
been  baptized,  i.  e.  immersed,  on  profession  of 
their  individual  faith,  their  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren have  represented  them  as  bigoted,  il- 
liberal, and  uncharitable  ;  as  believing  none 
will  go  to  heaven  but  Baptists!  Because 
Baptists  believe  and  know  that  the  ordinances 
of  the  New  Testament,  viz:  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  are  not  taught  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  are  peculiar  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, their  brethren  of  other  communions 
have  disingenuously  represented  them  as  re- 
jecting the  Old  Testament  as  a  part  of  divine 
revelation  !  ! 

Such  are  some  of  the  gross  misrepresenta- 
tions, published  to  the  world,  as  the  doctrines 
of  the  Baptist  denomination.  Such  illiberal 
views  and  misrepresentations  are  often  instil- 


320  ARGUMENTS  ELICITED 

led  into  the  minds  of  children,  and  their  preju- 
dices grow  with  their  growth,  and  strengthen 
with  their  advance  in  years. 

To  some  considerable  extent,  especially 
among  the  less  informed,  who  depend  princi- 
pally upon  their  ministers  for  their  religious 
sentiments,  without  much  personal  examina- 
tion, sprinklirig  and  i?ifant  baptism  are  rendered 
popular  at  the  expense  of  Baptist  views,  and 
Baptist  character.  Ay,  at  the  expense  of  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  the  Bible  !  and  at  the  expense 
of  the  example  of  Jesus  ! 

If  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  would  have  us 
hold  and  practise  sprinkling  for  baptism,  and 
admit  unconscious  babes  as  suitable  candidates 
for  this  public  ordinance,  let  them  point  us  to 
one  plain  Scripture  proof  where  such  notions 
are  explicitly  taught,  or  to  one  evident  example 
in  the  life  of  Christ  and  his  apostles;  and 
Baptists  will  no  longer  reject  them,  but  will 
forthwith  conform  to  the  wishes  of  their  Pedo- 
baptist brethren.  Till  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
do  so  ;  so  long  as  they  are  constrained  to  ac- 
knowledge that  there  is  neither  precept  nor 
example  for  their  practices,  let  them  conform 
to  the  most  ardent  wish  and  prayer  of  Bap- 
tists. Ay,  to  the  authority  and  pleasure  of 
the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  as  evidenced 
in  his  will  and  testament,  bequeathed,  as  a 
sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  to  his 
children. 

Nor  let  them  longer  represent  Baptists  as 


UNLIKE  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  32 1 

illiberal,  peccant,  bigoted,  and  uncharitable, 
believing  infants  are  lost,  and  that  none  will  be 
received  to  heaven  but  Baptists! 

When,  in  justice  to  ourselves,  and  by  way 
of  reproof  to  our  accusers,  I  may  ask,  when 
did  the  Baptist  denomination  believe  that  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy  are  lost  \  That  none 
but  Baptists  are  saved?  That  baptism  is 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  the  way  to  Christ? 
That  the  Old  Testament  is  not  a  divine  revela- 
tion ?  When  were  Baptists  disposed  to  insub- 
ordination and  insurrection?  unless  you  inter- 
pret their  conscientious  regard,  to  the  truths 
of  the  Bible,  and  their  fidelity  in  following 
the  examples  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  causes 
of  dissatisfaction  among  those  who  would 
compel  all  to  displace  some  of  the  commands 
and  institutions  of  Christ,  by  the  traditions 
and  inventions  of  men  ! !  And  when  where 
Baptists  void  of  offices  of  kindness,  of  liberal 
and  charitable  views  towards  other  denomina- 
tions professing  Christianity  ?  unless  it  be  a 
want  of  that  kind  of  universal  charity  of 
which  some  boast,  and  which  receives  and 
approves  of  all  sentiments  and  practices,  indis- 
criminately, whether  true  or  false,  good  or 
bad  ! ! 

If  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  have  hitherto 
been  betrayed  into  such  mistaken  views  re- 
specting Baptists,  their  sentiments  and  practices, 
it  is  time  that  those  mistakes  were  rectified. 
Hereafter,    let    such    groundless    objections 


322  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY 

against  Baptists  be  dismisssed,  and  no  longer 
be  reiterated  in  the  ears  of  those  whose  inquiry 
is,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do?" 

Whatever  of  sound  argument  can  be  ad- 
duced in  favour  of  Pedobaptism  let  it  be 
brought  forward  and  stated  in  a  manly  and 
tangible  form.  If  there  be  one  command, 
precept,  or  example,  for  infant  baptism,  show- 
it  to  the  world.  If  there  exists  neither  of 
these  to  sustain  the  practice,  then  let  it  be  put 
away  as  a  notion  of  the  fancy,  highly  detri- 
mental to  the  cause  of  truth  and  Christian 
fellowship.  As  a  barrier  to  the  union  of  God's 
people,  who  ought  to  be  one.  Having  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism. 


Section  II. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  DEPRIVES  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  RIGHT 
OF  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT,  AND  THEREFORE  IS  CONTRARY 
TO   THE    WORD    OF    GOD. 

Few  truths,  recorded  upon  the  inspired 
page,  are  more  evident  than  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment,  in  things  of  religion.  "Every 
one  that  hath  heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the 
Father,  cometh  unto  me."  "To  as  many  as 
received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  be- 
come the  sons  of  God;  even  to  them  that  be- 
lieve  on  his  name."      Every  where   do  the 


TO  THE  WORD  OP  GOD.  333 

Scriptures  acknowledge  the  principles  of  indi- 
vidual responsibility,  and  of  personal  duty  in 
matters  of  religion.  But  infant  baptism  takes 
away  the  right  of  private  judgment,  and 
deprives  those,  upon  whom  the  imposition  has 
been  practised,  of  the  liberty  of  conscience,  in 
acting  according  to  the  dictates  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

It  deprives  the  child,  when  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  of  the  right  of  following  his  own 
judgment,  and  binds  the  conscience  to  that 
faith  and  practice  in  religion,  respecting  which 
he  had  not  the  liberty  of  choosing. 

Who  but  admires  those  noble  and  evangelical 
sentiments  of  the  framers  of  the  Declaration  of 
American  Independence,  "That  all  men  are 
created  equal;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness." 

There  are  certain  inalienable  rights  belong- 
ing to  every  human  subject.  Among  which 
is  that  of  liberty — liberty  to  judge  and  act  for 
oneself;  liberty  to  pursue  that  course  which 
an  enlightened  conscience,  and  the  Word  of 
God  shall  dictate. 

No  man,  nor  body  of  men,  has  the  right  to 
deprive  us,  in  any  way  of  these  inestimable 
blessings. 

Our  parents  have  not  the  right  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  our  infancy,  and  then  and  there 
impose  upon  us  what  shall  fetter  our  conscience 


324  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY 

when  come  to  years  of  accountability.  Parents 
are  to  attend  faithfully  to  the  moral  and  re- 
ligious instruction  of  their  children.  But  it  is 
no  part  of  parental  duty  to  impose  upon  their 
infant  children  the  externals  of  religious  wor- 
ship. Every  one  stands  amenable  to  his 
Maker's  bar,  and  must  there  answer  for  him- 
self. "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  ye  shall 
not  have  occasion  any  more  to  use  this  pro- 
verb in  Israel :  The  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge. 
Behold,  all  souls  are  mine ;  as  the  soul  of  the 
father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine;  the 
soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die" — Ezek.  xviii. 
2,  3,  4. 

As  infants  are  not  arrived  to  the  age  of  dis- 
cretion and  accountability,  they  are  not  charge- 
able with  actual  transgression.  Their  un* 
holiness  is  only  derived,  it  is  not  brought  upon 
them  by  any  act  of  their  own.  They  cannot, 
therefore,  be  denominated  the  souls  that  sin- 
neth  :  and,  consequently,  they  do  not  fall  under 
the  Divine  menace,  "  it  shall  die"  Original 
sin  is  cancelled  by  the  blood  of  the  cross. 
"Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world."  But  the  soul  of  every 
one  arrived  to  years  of  accountability,  is  more 
or  less  guilty  of  actual  sin,  and,  therefore, 
must  eventually  perish,  unless  so  dreadful  an 
end  is  prevented  by  timely  repentance  and 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Adam's  sin  is 
not  that  of  which  a  sinner  repents.     His  is  a 


TO  THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  325 

personal  guilt,  and  a  personal  repentance.  His 
is  the  soul  that  sinneth ;  and  his  soul  must  be 
bowed  down  in  the  deepest  contrition  before 
God,  or  suffer  the  awful  wages  of  actual  trans- 
gression. But  infants,  not  being  actual  trans- 
gressors, are  not  called  to  repentance,  nor  to 
believe  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  con- 
sequently, they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  nor  with  any  of  the 
ceremonies  of  public  worship. 

Every  child,  from  its  earliest  infantile  mo- 
ments, should  be  the  subject  of  parental  soli- 
citude, and  the  most  fervent  prayers.  No 
sooner  should  reason  dawn  in  the  infant  mind, 
than  efforts  should  be  directed  to  improve  and 
mature  its  opening  powers ;  nor  should  such 
efforts  be  relaxed  at  any  successive  period  of 
the  juvenile  state.  Parents,  and  all  intrusted 
with  the  care  of  children,  are  under  the  most 
solemn  obligations  to  "  bring  them  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  As  soon 
as  practicable,  the  juvenile  mind  should  be 
imprinted  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  be  made 
to  feel  the  weight  of  its  own  responsibility. 

But  to  infringe  upon  ihe  rights  of  con- 
science, in  relation  to  the  externals  of  religion, 
comes  not  within  the  province  of  any  man. 
To  sprinkle  an  infant  babe,  and  then,  as  that 
child  is  verging  on  to  mature  years,  to  tell  it, 
again  and  again,  that  it  has  been  baptized,  is 
one  of  the  most  despotic  acts  of  which  man 
is  capable.  It  is  tyranny  of  the  worst  kind. 
28 


326  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY 

tyranny  in  religion!  !  Tyranny  over  the  con- 
science of  an  accountable  being!  ! 

It  is  forestalling  that  faith  and  practice 
which  belong  to  ripened  manhood,  by  an  eccle- 
siastic imposition  practised  upon  the  subject  in 
the  hour  of  unconscious  infancy  !  !  It  is  over- 
stepping the  bounds  both  of  reason  and  reve- 
lation !  ! 

Religion  is  a  voluntary  principle  in  the  soul. 
No  coercion  can  make  the  heart  pious.  No 
ecclesiastical  domination  can  change  the  moral 
character,  or  in  the  least  benefit  the  soul. 

Man  can  be  truly  religious  only  as  there  is 
a  virtue  in  his  religion.  "  He  must  believe 
with  all  his  heart."  He  must  repent  of  sin 
voluntarily,  as  influenced  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
And  then  as  a  penitent  and  as  a  believer  in 
Christ  Jesus,  is  he  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  the  Saviour;  and  walk  steadfastly  in  fellow- 
ship of  the  Apostles'  doctrines. 

But  compulsion,  further  than  what  is  of  a 
moral  nature,  has  no  place  in  religion.  "Not 
by  power  nor  might,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith 
the  Lord." 

Nothing  is  more  congenial  to  the  Christian 
religion,  than  to  enjoy  an  unrestrained  liberty 
of  conscience,  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. Nothing  can  be  more  foreign  to  Chris- 
tianity, than  to  deprive  us  of  such  liberty, 
either  by  despotic  power,  or  by  taking  advan- 
tage of  us  at  a  time  when  we  are  not  aware 
of  what  is  being  imposed   upon  us.     Such   a 


TO  THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


327 


course  tends  equally  to  monarchy  and  super- 
stition ;  and  isalike  unscriptural  and  unfriendly 
both  to  true  religion  and  civil  liberty. 

To  replenish  the  Church,  by  natural  gene- 
ration, and  by  infant  sprinkling,  is,  in  effect,  a 
union  of  church  and  state,  and  was,  indeed, 
the  very  beginning,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries,  of  a  union  so  unnatural  and  blight- 
ing to  the  dearest  interests  of  civil  andreligrous 
liberty,  and  should  be  regarded,  in  this  age,  as 
highly  disastrous  to  the  perpetuity  of  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government. 

Says  an  highly  gifted  and  well  qualified 
judge,  "  The  actual  tendency  of  infant  sprink- 
ling, is  to  open  the  gates  of  the  Church  as  wide 
as  the  gates  of  the  world,  and  to  receive  into 
its  bosom  all  that  is  born  of  woman. 

"That  this  may  appear  as  obvious  as  the 
light  of  the  sun,  the  reader  has  only  to  reflect, 
that  if  the  Pedobaptist  system  prevailed,  so  that 
all  the  fathers  and  mothers  in  any  country,  or 
in  all  countries,  were  determined  to  have  their 
infant  offspring  "initiated  into  the  Church" 
as  soon  as  born,  by  the  rite  of  sprinkling,  then, 
in  that  country,  or  in  all  countries  so  acting, 
the  discrimination  between  the  world  and  the 
Church  would  be  lost ;  its  gates  would  be  as 
capacious  as  those  of  the  world,  and  without 
the  necessity  of  regeneration,  every  member 
of  the  human  family  in  that  region  or  country, 
would  have  a  place  in  the  Church. 

"  About  one  hundred  years  ago,  the  whole 


328  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY 

kingdom  of  Scotland,  with  the  exception  of, 
say  two  or  three  thousand  individuals,  was  one 
great  Pedobaptist  society.  In  those  days  the 
Church  engrossed  all  that  were  born,  and 
initiated  them  into  it.  Of  course,  all  the  enor- 
mities committed  in  the  realm,  were  committed 
by  members  of  the  Church  ;  so  that  none  of  the 
apostolic  admonitions,  in  which  the  difference 
betwixt  the  Church  and  the  world  is  pointed 
out,  would  apply  to  them. 

"  In  the  year  thirteen  hundred,  and  for  seve- 
ral centuries  before,  all  the  citizens  of  Ger- 
many, France,  Spain,  England,  and,  indeed, 
all  the  western  Roman  empire,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  Baptists,  were  initiated  into 
what  was  then  called  the  Church,  as  soon  as 
the  parents  could  have  the  rite  performed.  In 
those  days,  and  while  those  principles  prevailed, 
the  Church  was  secularized,  the  Church  and 
state  completely  amalgamated ;  and  all  the 
follies  and  vices  of  childhood,  manhood,  and 
old  age,  were  engrafted  upon  the  stock  of 
Christianity.  In  those  days,  Pedobaptist  prin- 
ciples triumphed;  and  there  never  was  a  period 
in  which  the  Church  was  so  completely  and 
universally  carnalized  and  secularized" 

The  natural  tendency  of  infant  sprinkling  is 
to  destroy  all  distinction  between  the  Church 
and  the  world  ;  and,  consequently,  to  destroy 
pure  spiritual  Christianity.  When  you  lay 
aside  the  principle  of  personal  piety  as  an  in- 
dispensable prerequisite  to  church-member- 


TO  THE  WORD  OP  GOD.  3gg 

ship,  you  virtually  lay  aside  the  doctrine  of  the 
soufs  regeneration,  and  strike  a  death-blow  at 
the  vitality  of  true  religion.  You  then  make 
Christians  by  the  law  of  the  state,  and  not  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  And  in  this  way  thousands 
are  annually  added  to  the  Church,  and,  of 
course,  if  not  afterwards  excluded,  continue 
members  of  the  Church.  And  as  no  Pedobap- 
tist  Church  excludes  those  added  by  birth,  and 
by  sprinkling,  of  course,  they  are,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  members  of  the  Church,  and 
should  be  treated  as  such.  The  Episcopal 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  the  Presby- 
terian Church  of  Scotland,  the  Roman  Church 
of  Italy,  the  Lutheran  Church  of  Germany,  and, 
indeed,  Pedobaptists  in  all  countries,  except- 
ing America,  acknowledge  those  added  in  in- 
fancy, when  grown  to  years  of  discretion,  as 
church-members,  and  treat  them  accordingly. 
It  must  be  evident  to  every  understanding 
mind,  that  such  a  course  is  consistent  with  it- 
self, while  that  of  receiving  infants  into  the 
Church,  and  then  ever  after  treat  them  as  not 
belonging  to  the  Church,  has  not  the  shadow 
of  consistence.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  amal- 
gamating the  Church  and  the  world  in  this 
way,  the  foundation  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  is  greatly  endangered,  and  must  even- 
tually, in  this  country,  as  it  has  done  in  all 
other  countries,  give  place  to  a  full  ecclesias- 
tical and  legal  establishment. 
28* 


33Q  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY 

"Dato  uno  absurdo,  multa  seguntur;" — 
yield  one  absurdity,  and  many  more  follow. 
Grant  that  it  is  right  to  bring  the  infants  of  a 
nation  into  the  Church,  and  you  have  a  Church, 
at  least  in  part,  of  this  world  ;  and  just  in  pro- 
portion as  you  render  such  a  system  popular, 
you  prepare  the  way  for  a  religious  establish- 
ment, when,  as  aforetime,  conscientious  fide- 
lity to  the  commands  of  Jesus  will  be  punished 
with  stripes  and  imprisonment,  with  banish- 
ment or  death. 

Infant  church-membership  is,  therefore,  di- 
rectly opposed  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
visible  Church,  as  it  constitutes  a  connecting 
link  between  the  Church  and  the  world. 

And  at  no  period  of  American  independence 
has  there  been  greater  occasion  for  alarm  re- 
specting our  free  institutions  and  religious  pri- 
vileges than  at  the  present  time.  Romanists 
are  pouring  in  upon  us  apace.  They  come  to 
our  shores  with  high  notions  of  an  established 
religion  ;  and  vast  numbers  of  them,  on  leaving 
their  native  land,  are  instructed  to  do  what 
they  can  to  subvert  our  government,  laws,  and 
religion,  with  a  view  of  establishing  Roman- 
ism, which  is  only  another  name  for  tyranny 
and  dire  usurpation  over  the  rights  of  men. 

It  ought  to  be  known  and  remembered  too, 
by  every  well-wisher  of  his  American  home, 
and  of  the  souls  of  men,  that  infant  baptism, 
and  infant  church  membership  constitute  the 
very   foundation    upon    which    the    Roman 


TO  THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


331 


Church  hopes  to  establish  herself  in  this  happy 
land. 

It  is  time  and  high  time  that  Christians  of 
America  were  awake  to  the  efforts  of  Roman- 
ists, whose  avowed  aim  is  to  plant  the  Roman 
faith  in  this  land  of  equal  rights. 

A  society  has  been  formed  in  Austria  for 
the  express  purpose  of  sending  the  priests  of 
the  Romish  Church  into  America  to  aid  for- 
ward the  design  of  reducing  this  country  to 
the  dominion  of  Papal  power.  In  an  address 
before  this  society  the  prince  of  Austria  stated 
that,  "  the  faith"  meaning  Romanism,  should 
be  established  in  America,  if  it  took  a  hundred 
years  to  accomplish  the  design.  He  farther 
remarked,  that  free  institutions  were  unfa- 
vourable to  "  the  faith"  and  that  he  would 
"  ever  oppose  a  will  of  iron  to  all  free  insti- 
tutions." 

Such  is  the  open  and  avowed  purpose  of  the 
highest  Papal  authority  in  the  world.  The 
Prince  of  Austria  has  even  the  Pope  at  his 
command,  since  it  is  by  Austria  that  the  pre- 
sent Pope  holds  his  office. 

The  vast  multitudes  of  the  Roman  commu- 
nion, which  are  annually  flocking  to  our 
shores,  come  with  raised  expectations  and  even 
with  flattering  promises  that,  erelong,  the  mis- 
named "  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  which  arro- 
gates to  herself  the  right  of  conferring  absolu- 
tion and  salvation,  shall  be  established  in  Ame- 
rica, and  take  the  place  of  our  free  institutions, 


gg2  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONTRARY,  &c. 

which  are  reputed  unfavourable  to  papacy. 
The  whole  multitude  of  Romanists,  who  come 
to  this  country,  are  completely  under  the  con- 
trol of  their  priests,  at  whose  bidding  they  are 
ready  for  any  device  promising  to  promote  the 
pleasure  of  his  Holiness  at  Rome.  The  Papal 
church  has  formed  her  design,  which  is  that, 
•at  no  distant  period  she  shall  be  able  to  say  to 
Americans,  "  Bow  down,  and  let  me  pass 
over." 

Think  not,  my  brethren,  that  I  am  sounding 
a  false  tocsin.  JVay,  this  is  no  unnecessary 
alarm.  It  is  a  sober  and  fearful  reality. 
Almost  as  frequent  as  the  beating  of  your  pulse, 
or  as  the  heaving  of  your  lungs,  is  the  Roman 
church,  strengthened  and  augmented  in  Ame- 
rica in  three  several  ways.  First,  by  emigra- 
tion; secondly  by  infant  baptism;  identifying 
all  her  infant  seed  with  the  church,  and  as  these 
children  come  to  years,  she  makes  them  believe 
that  they  are  regularly  baptized  and  added  to 
the  church  ;  and  lastly  by  free  schools  and  un- 
wearied diligence,  she  is  decoying  no  incon- 
siderable number  of  the  poor  of  American 
citizens,  under  her  influence,  holds  them  there 
until  wedded  to  her  imposing  worship,  and 
cheated  into  the  belief  that  their  salvation  is 
secure  by  virtue  of  their  baptism  and  con- 
nexion with  the  church.  It  is  to  the  interest 
of  Christianity  generally,  that  infant  baptism 
be  laid  aside  bv  all  the  followers  of  the  Lamb 
of  God 


INFANT  BAPTISM,  &c.  333 


Section  III. 

INFANT  BAPTISM,  AS  WELL  AS  SPRINKLING,  IS  HELD  UP  BY 
A  COURSE  OF  REASONING  OPPOSED  BY  ALL  SOUND  PHI- 
LOLOGICAL INQUIRY,  AND  IS  NOT  A  LITTLE  PROMOTIVE 
OF   SKEPTICISM. 

It  is  a  thing  farthest  possible  from  the  design 
of  Protestant  Pedobaptiststo  lend  their  influence 
in  support  of  infidelity.  Nor  would  I  say  that  the 
Roman  priests  design  to  unsettle  the  confidence 
of  others  in  such  a  revelation  as  they  profess 
to  receive.  But  who  can  doubt  for  a  moment 
that,  the  reasoning  of  Romanists  is  directly 
calculated  to  destroy  the  only  revelation  which 
God  has  graciously  given  into  the  hands  of 
mortals  ? 

And  little  less  certain  is  it,  though  without 
design,  that  the  arguments,  by  which  Pedo- 
baptism  is  sustained  tend  to  encourage  skepti- 
cal views  in  religion. 

The  same  course  of  reasoning,  if  carried 
out  and  applied  to  other  doctrines  of  the  Pro- 
testant faith,  wouid  reduce  them  beneath  the 
confidence  of  intellectual  beings,  and  charac- 
terize them  with  all  the  absurdity  in  which 
infidelity  would  fain  invest  them.  Suppose 
you  select  the  doctrine  of  the  Supreme  Divi- 
nity of  ihe  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  place  it  on 
a  foundation  supported  by  no  better  arguments 
than  infant,  baptism    and  sprinkling  are  sus- 


334 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


tained,  and  who  of  us  would  hold  on  to  it  for 
a  single  moment?  Or  would  any  sustain  the 
absurd  opposite,  viz  :  that  Jesus  Christ  was  only 
a  human  being,  a  little  more  cunning,  and, 
perhaps,  a  little  better  than  the  commonalty  of 
mankind,  they  need  ask  no  better  testimony 
than  the  same  plead  in  support  of  infant  bap- 
tism and  sprinkling,  if  such  testimony  be  once 
granted  as  valid  in  matters  of  religion. 

If  wre  may  be  allowed  to  take  the  position, 
assumed  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  that  we 
cannot  tell  what  meaning  to  attach  to  those 
words  in  the  revelation  of  God  which  are  em- 
ployed to  teach  us  Divine  institutions  and  im- 
portant doctrines,  where  shall  we  stop  in  our 
daring  course  of  rendering  ambiguous  what 
God  has  made  plain. 

If  we  may  set  supposition  and  inference 
against  positive  revealed  truth,  when  shall  we 
cease  to  bring  into  the  Christian  Church  the 
absurd  notions  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  sup- 
ported by  no  better  evidence  than  inference 
and  suppositions.  How  far  such  a  course  has 
tended  to  fill  the  world  with  wild  and  extra- 
vagant notions,  we  shall  not  be  able  to  know 
till  assembled  before  the  bar  of  Jehovah,  when 
the  dire  consequences  of  errors  in  religion  shall 
be  brought  to  light.  Every  error  here  is  at- 
tended with  evil  results  upon  the  cause  of 
piety  and  the  destiny  of  souls. 

And,  perhaps,  no  error  with  which  the 
Church  has  been  distracted  and  torn  asunder, 


PROMOTIVE  OF  SKEPTICISM.  335 

has  equalled  that  of  infant  baptism.     None  has 
been  a  more   fruitful   source  of  other  errors. 

How  far  the  reasoning,  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism,  has  prepared  the  way  for  so  many, 
of  late  years,  to  deny  the  Divine  nature  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
know.  But  one  thing  we  do  know,  and  that 
is,  that  vast  multitudes  of  Pedobaptists,  both 
in  England  and  in  the  United  States,  have 
rejected  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  embraced 
Deism. 

Says  a  popular  writer  of  London,  "  The 
successors  of  the  English  Presbyterians  of  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  have,  in 
almost  every  instance,  renounced  evangelical 
truth  and  degenerated  into  Socinians." — Me- 
tropolitan Pulpit,  p.  305. 

Such  is  the  appalling  fact.  That  entire  body 
of  Christians,  in  England,  have  become  skep- 
tical in  their  views  respecting  almost  every 
doctrine  of  our  holy  religion  ;  but  especially 
have  they  embraced  deistical  sentiments.  No 
longer  is  Jesus  to  them  a  Divine  Saviour. 
They  have  rejected  Him,  as  did  the  Jews 
before  them. 

When  such  loose  notions  are  entertained 
respecting  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  we 
may  well  inquire  whereunto  such  a  course 
shall  lead  us?  Only  let  it  be  granted  that  Pro- 
testant Christians  are  under  the  necessity  of 
leaving  words  which  teach  the  positive  institu- 
tions of  the  Gospel,  untranslated  in  their  ver- 


336 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


sions  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  give  this 
reason  to  the  infidel  world,  as  an  excuse  for 
their  conduct,  viz.,  that  they  cannot  define 
nor  translate  such  words,  and  where  is  the 
safety  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible?  Let  it  be 
granted  that  inference,  supposition,  tradition, 
and  conjecture,  are  sufficient  to  establish  a 
practice  as  an  institution  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment, and  what  can  Protestants  say  against 
the  catalogue  of  absurdities  in  the  Church  of 
Rome? 

Such  loose  notions  of  what  shall  be  received 
as  a  revelation  from  God,  well  prepares  the 
way  for  the  worst  of  errors.  Such  ideas 
were  entertained  by  the  Quakers,  multitudes 
of  whom  have  embraced  Socinian  views. 

And  how  painful  is  the  fact,  that  very  many 
of  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England, 
have  embraced  Socinianism.  Where,  but  a 
a  few  years  since,  Christ  was  proclaimed  as  a 
Divine  Saviour,  now  his  Divinity  is  vilified  and 
held  up  to  the  ridicule  of  infidelity. 

Did  not  the  limits  proposed  for  our  subject 
forbid,  some  of  these  circumstances  might  with 
much  propriety  be  brought  before  you.  But 
I  can  only  say,  that  it  is  dangerous  in  the  last 
degree  for  any  to  repose  the  least  confidence 
in  what  was  done  to  them  in  their  infancy. 
"  Millions,"  said  that  excellent  and  pious  man 
of  God,  Mr.  Hyatt,  minister  of  the  Tabernacle, 
London,  "Millions  have  been  taught  to  say 
that  in   baptism  they  are  made  members  of 


PROMOTIVE  OF  SKEPTICISM. 


337 


Christ,  who  have  given  indubitable  proof  that 
they  uttered  falsehood.  The  members  of  the 
body  of  Christ  are  united  to  hirn  as  a  head; 
and  there  are  no  dead,  no  unsanctified  mem- 
bers. AW  are  useful,  active,  and  obedient. 
Ah!  my  hearers,  beware  of  deception — beware 
of  substituting  the  name  for  the  reality — the 
form  of  godliness  for  the  power." 

2.  The  tendency  of  infant  baptism  is  hurt- 
ful to  the  peace  and  happiness  of  many  of 
those  who  are  really  pious.  No  inconsider- 
able number  of  Pedobaptist  professors  are 
troubled,  and  often  made  sorrowful,  because 
conscious  of  living  in  neglect  of  one  of  the 
plain  positive  commands  of  the  Saviour.  They 
would  fain  obey,  but  opposition  holds  them 
back.  Parents  oppose  children  ;  children  op- 
pose one  another ;  the  wife  is  opposed  by  her 
husband ;  husbands  are  opposed  by  their 
companions ;  and  by  these  and  other  reasons, 
many  are  kept  in  bondage,  all  the  days  of 
their  Christian  pilgrimage. 

They  know,  as  they  read  the  Bible,  that 
Christ  requires  of  them,  individually,  personal 
obedience  in  keeping  his  commands.  They 
feel  confident  that  what  their  parents  did  to 
them  in  the  hour  of  their  unconscious  infancy 
can  never  excuse  them  from  duties  which  they 
themselves  owe  the  Saviour.  They  see  and 
know  their  Master's  will,  and  would  fain  go 
and  be  baptized  on  profession  of  their  faith  in 
Jesus,  but  their  minister,  the  deacons  or  elders, 
29 


338 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


a  professed  friend  and  neighbour  stand  in  the 
way  of  their  doing  what  the  Bible  and  their 
conscience  commands  them  to  perform.  Some 
there  are  who  triumphing  over  all  opposing  ob- 
stacles, assert  their  rights,  their  liberty  of 
conscience  in  things  of  religion,  and  obey 
God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  revealed 
will,  fearless  of  what  man  can  do  unto  them. 
But  others,  less  courageous,  are  held  in  bond- 
age. 

To  such  let  me  say,  your  Saviour's  demand 
upon  you  is  paramount  to  that  of  any  being 
in  the  universe.  You  should  seek  to  please 
him,  at  all  times,  and  in  all  things.  Neither 
the  frown  nor  the  smile  should  deter  you 
from  your  duty  to  the  King  in  Zion.  What 
has  tyranny  or  sycophancy  to  do  with  reli- 
gion? No  one  has  a  right  to  impose  upon 
you  any  act  of  religious  worship  without  con- 
sulting your  pleasure.  No  man  on  earth  has 
the  right  to  chain  the  moral  sense  of  his  child 
to  any  set  of  opinions  not  distinctly  com- 
manded or  exemplified  in  the  Bible.  Nor 
should  children  feel  themselves  under  the 
slightest  obligation  to  be  governed  by  what 
their  parents  did  to  them  in  their  infancy. 

Indeed,  as  a  parent,  I  should  fear  and  trem- 
ble in  view  of  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day,  if  engaged  in  a  course  of  preventing  ac- 
countable beings  acting  for  themselves  in 
things  between  them  and  their  God.  What 
part  of  parental  duty  is  it,  for  a  father  and 


PROMOTIVE  OF  SKEPTICISM. 


339 


mother  to  have  a  little  water  sprinkled  upno 
the  face  of  an  unknowing,  unconscious  babe, 
and  then  by  prayers  and  daily  effort  endea- 
vour to  make  that  babe,  when  grown  to  years, 
believe  that  it  has  been  baptized?  "Who 
hath  required  this  at  your  hands'?" 

Where  do  such  parents,  where  to  Pedobap- 
tist  ministers  get  a  warrant  for  preventing  ra- 
tional accountable  beings  acting  for  them- 
selves? It  is  time,  indeed,  that  such  practices, 
so  well  suited  to  the  dark  ages,  but  illy  be- 
coming the  nineteenth  century,  were  aban- 
doned by  all  respecting  the  Bible  as  a  revela- 
tion from  God. 

Shall  not  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  soon  be 
willing  to  lay  aside  a  practice  so  perfectly 
puerile  and  unscriptural  ?  Can  it  be  ideal  to 
anticipate  a  thing  so  just  in  itself,  and  so  much 
to  be  desired  ? 


340  CONCLUSION. 

CONCLUSION. 

It  is  with  mingled  and  inexpressible  emo- 
tions, my  brethren,  that  we  are  called  upon 
thus  to  canvass  the  word  of  God  with  those 
professing  to  receive  that  word  as  an  inspired 
rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice !  Emo- 
tions, awakened  by  extreme  efforts  to  retain 
what  God  has  not  commanded,  as  standing 
ordinances  in  the  Christian  church,  are  better 
felt  than  expressed,  especially  so  when  those 
efforts  are  put  forth  by  our  brethren  in  Christ, 
and  are  held  on  to,  to  the  dividing  of  the 
household  of  faith. 

Feelings  of  the  soul  which  must  have  en- 
throned themselves  upon  every  heart,  whose 
daily  aspirations  ascend  to  the  God  of  grace, 
for  the  speedy  dawn  of  that  day,  when,  as  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  multitude  of  them 
that  believe  shall  be  of  one  heart  and  of  one 
soul,  living  in  perfect  love,  and  "endeavour- 
ing to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace,"  "  when  the  watchmen,  seeing  eye 
to  eye,  shall  lift  up  their  voice  together,  and 
together  sing.',  A  day,  when  truth  shall  have 
obtained  the  acme  held  in  reserve  for  her, 
when  she  shall  have  reached  that  elevation 
towards  which  she  has  been  gradually  ad- 
vancing under  the  incumbrances  heaped  upon 
her  during  the  third  and  succeeding  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era,  and  when  she  shall  have 


CONCLUSION.  g^J 

victoriously  triumphed  over  every  form  of  de- 
lusion and  error. 

That  such  a  day  is  yet  to  dawn  upon  the 
church  and  the  world,  there  can  be  but  little 
doubt.  Every  one,  familiar  with  the  predic- 
tions of  ancient  prophets  and  the  promises  of 
the  gospel,  must  not  only  look  forward  with 
pleasing  anticipation,  to  the  coming  of  such  a 
day,  but  earnestly  pray  that  it  may  soon  be 
ushered  in.  Excited,  under  the  confidence 
which  the  Scriptures  inspire,  we  can  join  in 
the  well  known  affirmation,  "  Magna  est  Veri- 
tas et  prevalebit," — Great  is  the  truth  and  it 
ivill  ultimately  prevail.  Faith  asserts  her 
claims,  and  holds  in  pleasing  prospect  the  de- 
molition of  all  idols,  and  the  display  of  the 
banner  of  truth  in  every  land.  Where  super- 
stition has  long  swayed  an  undisputed  sceptre, 
and  where  an  unbroken  and  starless  night 
broods  over  millions  of  our  race,  even  there 
shall  the  sum  of  righteousness  arise  with 
healing  in  his  wings,  and  the  day-spring  from 
on  high  shall  visit  these  to  give  light  to  them 
that  sit  in  darkness  and  in  the  shadow  of 
death,  to  guide  their  feet  into  the  way  of 
peace.  No  less  certain,  and  little  less  impor- 
tant are  the  conquests  of  truth  to  be  achieved 
in  Christian  lands.  The  time  must  come 
when  Christ  shall  glorify  himself  in  rectifying 
his  church  and  in  restoring  her  to  primitive 
order  and  pristine  purity.  The  day  will 
come,  and  may  it  speed  its  course,  when 
29* 


342 


CONCLUSION. 


"  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah 
shall  not  vex  Ephraim."  But  when  u  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  become  the  king- 
dom of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ ;"  "  and  the 
Lord  shall  be  king  over  all  the  earth;  in  that 
day  shall  there  be  one  Lord,  and  his  name 
one."  Then,  the  faith  and  practice  of  all 
Christians  shall  be  so  nearly  identified,  as  at 
least,  to  secure  a  striking  semblance  to  the 
church  of  Christ  in  apostolic  times,  and  save 
the  doctrines  of  the  cross  from  the  aspersions 
palmed  upon  them  by  the  infidel  world,  in 
consequence  of  the  diversity  of  opinions  re- 
specting the  institutions  of  the  gospel,  which, 
unhappily,  have  obtained  in  these  latter  days. 

It  is  charitably  believed,  that  the  more  pious 
and  devout  among  all  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, pray  daily  for  a  union  of  sentiment  and 
a  concert  of  action  in  the  Christian  world. 
Such,  as  individuals,  are  willing  to  sacrifice, 
for  the  sake  of  union,  every  denominative  pe- 
culiarity, in  support  of  which  the  Scriptures 
contain  no  unequivocal  and  positive  affirma- 
tion. There  are,  unquestionably,  those  whose 
prepossessed  opinions  and  long  indulged  preju- 
dices in  favour  of  some  distinctive  practices 
are  so  inveterate  and  so  interwoven  with  their 
very  existence,  as  to  counteract  in  them  the 
more  befitting  characteristics  of  godliness, 
which  scarcely  allow  them  to  pray,  and  much 
less  to  labour  for  a  unanimity  of  faith  and 


CONCLUSION.  343 

practice  throughout  the  Christian  church. 
Such  cling,  with  an  unyielding  tenacity,  to  the 
party  with  which  they  hold  a  connection, 
without  inquiring  into  the  validity  of  the 
rights,  for  which  they  so  ardently  contend. 
But  happy  for  the  church  and  the  world  that 
there  are  others,  among  all  evangelical  socie- 
ties, of  a  far  different  and  more  enviable 
spirit,  who  are  less  attached  to  any  party, 
and  more  firmly  devoted  to  the  truth,  as  it  is 
in  Jesus ;  and  who,  were  it  not  for  the  per- 
suasion of  leaders  and  the  imbecilities  of 
human  nature,  would  boldly  assert  their 
rights,  and  magnanimously  strip  themselves 
from  every  innovation  in  the  Christian  church. 
"  The  spirit  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  it  weak." 
There  are  those,  and  the  number  will  con- 
tinually increase,  "  until  we  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith,"  who,  like  the  noble  Be- 
reans,  search  the  Scriptures  daily,  and  from 
them,  irrespective  of  the  opinions  of  men,  de- 
cide what  was  the  order  of  the  church  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  They  re- 
gard the  Bible  as  the  only  history  upon  which 
any  implicit  reliance  can  be  placed,  in  decid- 
ing what  is  to  be  believed  and  practiced  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  And  all,  who  are  most 
diligent  in  testing  their  belief  and  practice  by 
the  writings  of  holy  and  inspired  men,  will 
come  nearer  to  the  truth  and  be  more  ardent 
at  a  throne  of  grace,  in  pleading  for  union 
among  all  Christians;   such   will   suffer   no- 


344  CONCLUSION. 

thing  to  divide  them  from  others,  only  a  con- 
scientious regard  to  the  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions of  the  gospel.  I  sincerely  hope  that 
every  Baptist,  yes,  and  every  brother  and  sis- 
ter in  Christ,  of  whatever  name,  will  examine 
themselves,  according  to  the  above  principles, 
and  unite  with  the  examination  of  their  faith, 
their  devout  supplications  to  God  for  light  to 
understand  his  truth,  and  for  humility  of  heart 
to  practise  it,  in  unison  with  all  those  who 
come  nearest  to  the  order  of  the  church  as 
delineated  in  the  New  Testament.  Who  can 
hesitate  for  a  moment,  thus  to  examine,  pray, 
and  act,  when  they  behold  the  progress  of 
error  and  every  species  of  delusion,  in  our 
Christian  land?  Who,  that  loves  his  country 
and  the  rights  of  freedom,  should  hesitate  to 
divest  himself  of  every  prejudice  and  practice, 
not  consonant  with  the  plain  and  unvarnished 
instructions  of  the  Bible,  for  the  sake  of  pro- 
moting union  of  sentiment  and  action  among 
all  Christians,  and  of  uniting  them  in  main- 
taining the  religion  taught  us  from  on  high, 
against  the  flood  of  infidelity,  assuming  ten 
thousand  shapes,  and  threatening  to  deluge 
our  happy,  and,  if  united  as  brethren,  still 
happier  land  ?  Who,  I  ask,  my  brethren, 
while  viewing  the  thoughtless  and  wayward 
multitude  hastening  down  to  the  chambers  of 
death,  and  from  thence  to  the  decisions  of  the 
last  great  day,  reckless  of  their  eternal  inte- 
rests, and  pleading  as  an  excuse  of  their  in- 


conclusion.  345 

difference,  the  divisions  and  contentions  among 
the  differing  sects  of  professing  Christians; 
who,  while  looking  upon  such  a  scene,  is 
not  prepared  to  voiv,  whatever  may  be  the 
consequences,  that  he  will  "sacrifice  every 
thing  to  truth,  and  her  to  nothing?"  Are  you 
Christians?  do  you  love  Christ  and  his  com- 
mands? have  you  anxious  desires  for  the  sal- 
vation of  your  fellow-men  accompanying  you 
to  the  bar  of  God?  would  you  have  your  gar- 
ments pure  from  the  blood  of  all  the  thousands 
over  whom  your  practice  and  belief  command 
a  lasting  influence  to  be  entailed  upon  posterity? 
Then  I  anticipate  the  stand  you  will  take.  You 
will  seek  to  know  and  understand  the  truth, 
and  to  walk  in  its  holy  light.  You  will  anx- 
iously inquire  what  can  be  done  for  the  promo- 
tion of  union  in  the  "  Apostle's  doctrine  and  fel- 
lowship?" What  you,  as  individuals,  can  do 
to  restore  to  the  Christian  church  "  One  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism  ?"  What  you  can 
abandon  in  your  present  practice,  and  what 
Bible  truth  you  can  put  in  practice  which 
hitherto  you  have  neglected?  Yes,  you  will 
inquire  with  no  ordinary  emotions  of  soul, 
how  we,  as  Christians,  can  attain  that  most 
desirable  object,  the  union  of  all  the  true  fol- 
lowers of  the  Lamb  of  God,  in  a  way  that 
shall  do  justice  to  the  Bible,  and  benefit  the 
souls  of  men  ?  In  a  way  that  shall  glorify  our 
ascended  Saviour,  till  he  comes  to  receive  rs 
to  himself  in  glory.     Amen. 


APPENDIX. 


The  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminister,  in  the  yeafS 
1643,  1644. 

This  Assembly  was  solely  the  creature  of  the  British 
government,  composed  exclusively  of  Pedobaptists,  and 
convoked  by  the  two  houses  of  Parliament  for  the  ex-» 
press  purpose  of  preparing  a  Confession  of  Faith,  a 
Catechism,  and  a  Directory  of  Public  Worship  and 
Church  Government  for  that  nation. 

Parliament  was  first  and  last  in  all  things  which  came 
before  the  Assembly.  She  proposed  subjects  for  debate 
and  then,  nothing  that  the  Assembly  transacted  was  of 
any  account,  only,  as  it  received  the  sanction  of  the 
House  of  Commons. 

It  was  the  church  and  state  united  in  preparing  arti- 
cles of  faith  and  practice  for  the  nation  of  Great  Bri- 
tain. 

Every  one  that  did  not  conform  to  their  dictation  was 
to  feel  the  severity  of  their  displeasure. 

"  The  Presbyterians,"  says  Mr.  Brooks, "  now  gaining 
the  ascendancy,  discovered  a  strong  propensity  to  grasp 
at  the  same  arbitrary  power,  as  that  under  which  they 
had  for  a  long  time  groaned." 

While  all,  not  Presbyterians,  suffered  because  of 
their  sentiments;  the  Baptists  especially  were  made  to 
feel  the  weight  of  their  power. 

Often  did  the  Assembly,  during  its  session,  consult 
with  the  House  of  Commons  how  they  might  suppress 


348 


APPENDIX. 


Baptists,  or,  as  they  were  pleased  to  call  them,  Ana- 
baptists. 

As  strange  as  it  may  appear,  yet  it  is  no  less  strange 
than  true,  that,  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  attributed  their 
Lord  General's  defeat  in  the  west,  to  "  Parliament  not 
being  active  in  suppressing  Baptists."  See  Journal  of 
the  Assembly,  Sep.  9,  10,  A.  D.  1644. 

On  July  10th,  1644.  Dr.  Lightfoot  a  violent  opposer 
of  Baptists,  says,  "  Here  we  were  consulting  what  to  fall 
next  upon.  I  moved  urgently  that  we  might  fall  upon 
baptism,  for  the  clearing  of  ourselves  of  Anabaptism 
which  so  much  increaseth,  which  was  accordingly  con- 
cluded to  be  done." 

After  considering  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  as  to 
the  questions,  by  whom  ?  how,  and  where  ?  it  should  be 
performed,  the  Assembly  came  more  particularly  to  con- 
sider the  mode  of  baptism.  For  the  information  of  those 
into  whose  hands  this  little  manual  may  fall,  I  will  here 
transcribe  the  doings  of  the  Assembly,  as  taken  down  by 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  onlv  recorded  such  things  as  might 
suit  his  pleasure.  He  was  not  the  secretary  of  the  As- 
sembly.    Those  were  H.  Robens  and  A.  Byfield. 

Mr.  Lightfoot,  therefore,  setting  down  only  such  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Assembly  as  suited  his  pleasure,  has 
not  furnished  us  with  an  impartial  account  of  their  pro- 
ceedings against  Baptists,  nor  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism. 

Nevertheless,  he  records  enough  to  show  what  efforts 
were  put  forth  to  put  down  immersion  and  establish 
sprinkling.     I  quote  the  following. 

"  Wednesday,  Aug.  7,  1644.  Then  fell  we  upon  the 
work  of  the  day  ;  which  was,  about  baptizing  'of  the 
child,  whether  to  dip  him  or  sprinkle.''  And  this  propo- 
sition, '  It  is  lawful  and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the 
child,'  had  been  canvassed  before  our  adjourning,  and 
was  now  ready  to  vote ;  but  I  spake  against  it  as  being 
very  unfit  to  vote,  that  it  is  lawful  to  sprinkle,  when 
every  one  grants  it.  Whereupon,  it  was  fallen  upon, 
sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping  should  be 


APPENDIX.  34Q 

tolerated  with  it.  And  here  fell  we  upon  a  large  and 
long  discourse,  whether  dipping  were  essential,  or  used 
in  the  first  institution,  or  in  the  Jews'  custom. 

"  After  a  long  dispute  it  was  at  last  put  to  the  question, 
whether  the  Directory  should  run  thus,  'The  minister 
shall  take  water,  and  sprinkle  or  pour  it  with  his 
hand  upon  the  face  or  forehead  of  the  child  :"  and  it  was 
voted  so  indifferently,  that  we  were  glad  to  count  names 
twice  ;  for  so  many  were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  ex- 
cluded, that  the  votes  came  to  an  equality  within  one  ; 
for  the  one  side  was  twenty-four — the  other,  twenty- 
five  :  the  twenty-four  for  the  reserving  of  dipping,  and 
the  twenty-five  against  it:  and  there  grew  a  great  heat 
upon  it :  and  when  we  had  done  all,  we  concluded  upon 
nothing  in  it ;  but  the  business  was  recommitted.'''' 

"  Then  were  produced  some  letters,  sent  us  out  of 
Holland  ;  first,  from  Mr.  Strickland,  and  then  from  a 
synod  at  Hague  :  these  being  read,  we  adjourned." 

"  Thursday,  Aug.  8.  Our  first  work  to-day  was,  that 
Dr.  Hoyle  reported  the  names  of  three  that  had  been 
examined  for  fellowship  in  Cambridge. 

"  Then  fell  we  upon  our  work  about  dipping  in  bap- 
tism :  and  first,  it  was  proposed  by  Dr.  Burgess,  that 
our  question  proposed  yesterday  might  be  proposed 
again.  And  this  cost  some  time  before  we  could  get 
off  this  business  ;  at  last  it  was  put  to  the  question, 
whether  the  quest  ion  put  yesterday  should  be  more  de- 
bated before  determined,  and  it  was  voted  affirmatively. 
"  And  so  we  fell  upon  the  business  :  and  1  first  pro- 
posed, that  those  that  stand  for  dipping  should  show 
some  probable  reason  why  they  hold  it.  Dr.  Temple 
backed  me  in  the  thing:  and  Mr.  Marshall  began  ;  and 
he  said,  that  he  doubted  not  that  all  the  Assembly  con- 
cluded that  dipping  was  lawful.  I  flatly  answered  that 
I  hold  it  unlawful,  but  an  tBi%o§prioxsio.\  and  therefore 
desired  that  it  might  be  proved.  But  it  was  first  thought 
fit  to  goto  the  business  by  degrees;  and  so  it  was  first  put 
to  the  vote,  and  voted  thus  affirmatively, '  that  pouring  on 
of  water,  or  sprinkling  of  it  in  the  administration  of  bap- 
30 


350  APPENDIX. 

tism  is  lawful  and  sufficient.'   But  I  excepted  at  the  word 

•  lawful,'astoopoor,forthatitwasasifweshould  putthis 
query — whether  it  be  lawful  to  administer  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per in  bread  and  wine1?  and  I  moved  that  it  might  be  ex- 
pressed thus, — '  It  is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  sufficient ;' 
and  it  was  done  so  accordingly.  But  as  for  the  dispute 
itself  about  dipping,  it  was  thought  jit  and  most  safe  to 
let  it  alone,  and   to  express  it  thus  in  our  Directory, — - 

*  He  is  to  baptize  the  child  with  water,  which  for  the 
manner  of  doing  is  not  only  lawful  but  also  sufficient,  and 
most  expedient  to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on 
the  face  of  the  child,  without  any  other  ceremony.' 
But  this  cost  a  great  deal  of  time  about  the  wording  of 
it." 

"Friday,  Aug.  9.  *  *  *  Then  did  Mr.  Marshall  re- 
port from  the  committee  chosen  to  study  a  remedy 
against  Anabaptists,  Brownists,  &c,  particularly  he 
mentioned  one  Knowle,  an  Anabaptist,  and  Penrose, 
Randall,  Simson,  Tandey,  Cornhill,  Blackwood,  Cursor, 
&c.  This  business  was  also  ordered  to  be  sent  to  the 
Houses."  Journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly 
of  Divines;  from  Jan.  1,  1643,  to  Decern.  31,  1644. 
Lightfoot's  Works,  vol.  13,  pp.  299—302. 

1  have  subjected  myself  to  no  little  expense  and  pains 
to  secure  the  above  doings  of  the  Assembly,  as  penned 
by  a  Pedobaptist,  and  none  other  than  Dr.  Lightfoot 
himself.  The  more  anxious  was  I  in  securing  the  above 
because  of  the  different  opinions  which  at  this  distance 
of  time  have  obtained  respecting  the  doings  of  the  As- 
sembly, on  the  subject  of  baptism.  N  ow  every  one  may 
judge  for  himself,  and  be  able  to  see  with  his  own 
eyes. 

My  Baptist  brethren  have  been  betrayed  into  a  slight 
mistake,  by  reason  of  their  quoting  Pedobaptist  authors 
who  have  in  like  manner  been  mistaken.  Justice  to  the 
reputation  of  that  devoted  man  of  God,  the  late  Rev.  Dr. 
Davis,  of  Hartford,  who  wrote  the  tract  containing  the 
statement  said  to  be  "  vamped  up"  requires  me  briefly 
to  remark  that  the  case,  as  reported  by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  is 


APPENDIX.  351 

even  worse  than  it  has  been  represented.  For  mark,  so 
divided  were  this  Pedobaptist  Assembly  about  excluding 
immersion  from  their  Directory  and  practice,  that 
"there  grew  a  great  heat  upon  it,  and  when  they  had 
done  all  they  concluded  upon  nothing  in  it." 

They  found  it.  best  for  them  to  pass  over  the  subject 
as  soon  as  possible.  "  As  for  the  dispute  itself  about 
dipping,  it  was  thought  fit  and  most  safe  to  let  it 
alone" 

Moreover,  I  may  add  that  Baptists  no  where  have  re- 
presented that  immersion  was  the  entire  mode  at  the  time 
when  that  Assembly  convened.  Sprinkling  was  intro- 
duced at  a  much  earlier  period,  as  is  acknowledged  by 
all  Baptist,  authors  who  have  written  upon  the  subject. 
Pedobaptists  acknowledge  that  immersion  was  the  com- 
mon mode,  and  almost  universal  up  to  the  13th  century, 
when  the  Roman  Church  decreed  that  sprinkling  should 
be  the  practice. 

Dr.  Wall  informs  us  that  an  Assembly  convoked  in 
1544,  framed  a  directory  for  public  worship  which  for- 
bids the  bringing  of  the  child  to  the  font;  then  the  Dr. 
adds,  "  So  parallel  to  the  rest  of  their  reformation,  they 
reformed  the  font  into  a  basin."     Vol.  2.  C.  9,  p.  403. 

B. 

Pious  baptized  females  have  a  Divine  right  to  come 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  there  is  a  Divine  warrant 
for  keeping  the  First  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath. 

One  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  biblical  inter- 
pretation, acknowledged  alike  both  by  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists,  is,  that,  for  a  positive  institution  in  the 
Christian  Church,  there  must  be  found  on  the  pages  of 
inspiration,  an  express  warrant,  authorized  either  by  a 
Divine  command  or  example. 

This  is  a  principle  of  great  importance,  and  often  re- 
sorted to  by  the  friends  of  Christianity,  when  defending 
her  against  the  objections^preferred  by  those  who  seek 


352 


APPENDIX. 


to  bring  things  into  the  Church,  which  have  no  Divine 
warrant. 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  not  only  acknowledge,  but 
ably  defend  this  rule  whenever  called  to  take  the  field 
against  the  numerous  and.  still  multiplying  sects  which 
twist  the  Scriptures  to  suit  their  erroneous  notions. 

But  no  sooner  do  they  begin  to  support  infant  bap- 
tism, than  they  commence  an  attack  upon  this  rule  of 
interpretation,  and  attempt  to  establish  a  rule  directly 
the  opposite ;  to  make  it  appear  that  we  may  practice 
that,  as  a  Divine  rite,  for  which  we  have  no  positive 
precept,  nor  explicit  example  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  this  special  case,  they  set  aside  the  rule,  and  say,  if 
it  be  adopted,  then  "females  ought  never  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper ;  for  we  have  no  positive  precept,  and 
no  explicit  example  in  the  New  Testament  to  warrant 
them  in  doing  .so." 

If  it  be  true,  that  there  is  no  positive  precept  nor  ex- 
ample in  the  New  Testament  for  pious  females,  who 
have  been  baptized  on  profession  of  their  individual 
faith,  and  then  added  to  the  Church,  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  then,  by  all  means,  ought,  they  to  stay 
away — it  is  presumptuous  and  daring  for  mortals  to 
venture  where  God  has  not  authorized  them  to  go! 

The  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  established 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  given  into  the  bosom  of 
his  Church.  The  terms  of  admission,  and  the  qualifi- 
cations for  every  communicant,  are  divinely  fixed.  No 
person  ought  ever  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  unless 
he  has  the  proper  qualifications,  and  comes  in  a  proper 
way,  according  to  the  terms  which  God  has  immutably 
fixed.  You  may  find  fault  with  Baptists  for  holding 
this  principle ;  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  may,  as  they 
often  do,  misrepresent  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of 
our  hearts,  by  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  we  are 
bigoted  and  uncharitable,  but  let  them  know  we  dare 
not  depart  from  the  instituted  order  of  Christ's  Church. 
The  great  Apostle  was  highly  impressed  with  a  sense  of 
the  importance  of  strictly  observing  the  order  of  the 


APPENDIX.  353 

Church,  as  divinely  instituted,  when  he  so  sharply  re- 
buked the  Corinthians  for  not  observing  that  order.  Hear 
the  holy  Apostle,  jealous  for  the  house  of  God,  when  he 
asked  the  Corinthians,  by  the  way  of  reproof,  "  What 
shall  I  say  to  you  1  Shall  I  praise  you  in  this  ?  I  praise 
you  not.  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  de- 
livered unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread,  &c— Where- 
fore, whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup 
of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and 
so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup." — ■ 
1  Cor.  xi.  16—34. 

As  before,  so  say  I  again,  the  terms  upon  which  we 
may  come  to  the  Lord's  Table  are  fixed  by  the  Lord 
himself.  Paul  says,  "  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
also  I  delivered  unto  you."  And  what  Paul  and  the 
other  sacred  penmen  received  of  the  Lord  and  deliver 
unto  the  Church,  she  is  bound  by  every  principle  of 
righteousness  and  love  to  keep  and  observe.  Neither 
the  cry  of  bigotry  from  those  who  have  gone  off  from  the, 
primitive  order  of  the  Christian  Church,  nor  the  arm  of 
persecution,  should  move  the  disciple  of  Christ  from 
following  his  command,  and  faithfully  copying  the  ex- 
ample of  the  holy  Apostles. 

Just  as  many  as  have  the  requisite  qualifications  and 
come  in  the  way  of  Divine  appointment,  should  be  found 
often  celebrating  the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death  of 
their  once  crucified  but  now  ascended  Lord. 

Let  every  one  "  examine  himself  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup." 

If  there  is  any  warrant  in  the  New  Testament  for  a 
religion  established  by  law,  and  for  the  state  to  pre- 
scribe the  terms  of  communion  at  the  Table  of  the  Lord, 
then  the  Episcopalian  in  England  ;  the  Romanist  in 
Italy  and  France  ;  the  Presbyterian  in  Scotland ;  the 
Lutheran  in  Denmark  and  Germany;  and  the  Grecian  in 
Russia ;  all  being  made  members  of  those  several  na- 
tional Churches  by  law,  may  come  to  the  communion  as 
30* 


354 


APPENDIX. 


their  laws  severally  prescribe.  But,  if  Christ  has  au- 
thorised no  such  establishment;  if  He  is  the  only  law- 
giver in  his  body,  the  Church,  then  all  are  bound  to 
submit  to  his  ■prescribed  course,  both  in  becoming  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  and  in  conducting  themselves  when 
united  to  the  body  of  Christ. 

Here  I  must  introduce  the  testimony  of  a  distinguish- 
ed Presbyterian,  when  contending  against  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  practised  in  the  Church 
of  England.  Speaking  of  the  Christian  Church,  he  says, 
"If  it  be  a  Society  divinely  instituted,  then  whatever 
society  is  not  of  Divine,  but  of  merely  human  institu- 
tution,  is  not  the  Church  of  Christ.  If  it  be  a  Society 
divinely  instituted,  then  the  terms  of  admission  into 
this  Society,  and  the  qualifications  of  its  members  are 
divinely  fixed,  i.  e.,  fixed  by  the  will  and  authority  of 
God.  VVhatever  visible  society,  then,  hath  its  terms  of 
admission,  and  the  qualifications  of  its  members  not 
divinely  fixed,  fixed  only  by  the  will  and  authority  of 
men,  cannot  be  the  true  Christian  Church.11 — See  "  A 
Dissent  from  the  Church  of  England  Fully  Justified." 
Printed,  Dublin,  A.  D.,  1766,  p.  16. 

The  same  writer  further  judiciously  remarks,  "  If 
you  inquire  after  the  constitution  and  frame  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  where  must  you  look  for  it?  Only 
in  the  Bible.11  "  Into  the  Church  of  Christ  any  person 
may  be  admitted,  who  submits  to  the  terms  appointed 
by  Christ.11  "In  Christ's  Church  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  appointed  and  used  only  for  spiritual  and  religious 
ends,  with  intention,  and  as  a  mean  of  uniting  all  Chris- 
tians, and  of  destroying  all  variances  and  distinctif  .s 
betwixt  them."  "In  Christ's  Church,  Himself  is  the 
only  sovereign  head  ;  He  only  hath  power  to  decree 
ceremonies  and  rites,  to  fix  terms  of  communion  and 
authority  in  points  of  faith.11 — pp.  23,  24. 

Hear  this  Presbyterian  further,  for  surely  he  is  writ- 
ing Baptist  sentiments;  happy  for  the  Church  and  the 
world  too,  if  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  would  univer- 
sally abide  by  them.    He  adds,  "  I  beseech  you  very 


APPENDIX. 


355 


carefully  to  remember,  that  the  controversy  betwixt  us, 
depends  absolutely  and  entirely  upon  the  decision  of 
this  single  point — is  there  any  OTHER  Lawgiver,  or 
King,  in  the   Church  of  God,  to  whose  authority  and 
command,  as  to  things  of  religion,  Christians  are  bound 
to  submit,  BESIDES  Jesus  Christ,   or  is  there  not! 
If  there  be  no  other  Lawgiver  besides  Jesus  Christ, 
no  other  King,  no  other  authority  to  whose  decrees,  in 
point  of  doctrine,  and  to  whose  injunctions  in  point  of 
worship,  Chiristians  are  obliged,  and  ought  to  submit, 
then  the  dissenters,  in  every  impartial  judgment,  will  be, 
must  he  justified;  then  they  act  right ;  then  they  ought 
to  be  commended,  and  will  surely  be  rewarded  for  ad- 
hering loyally  and  firmly  to  the  ONE  only  King  and 
Lord  of  the  Church  ;  and    for  faithfully  opposing   the 
claims  of  any  other  power  ;  and  for  refusing  obedience 
to  the  injunctions  of  any  other  Lawgiver ;  and  the  de- 
cisions of  any  other   Judge,   who  hath   made   other 
articles  of  faith,  other  terms  of  communion,  other  rites 
of  worship  besides  and  above  those  which  CHRIST 
himself  has   made." — p.    66.     "  This  principle — that 
Christ  is  the  only  Lawgiver  and  King  in  his  Church; 
and  that  no  man,  no  body  of  men  upon  earth,  have  any 
authority  to  make  laws,  or  to  prescribe  things  in  religion 
which  shall  oblige  the  consciences  of  his  subjects,  is  the 
grand,  the  only  principle   upon  which  the  unity,  the 
purity,  and  the  peace   of  the    Christian   Church  can 
possibly  subsist.     Take  away  this,  and  you  let  in  end- 
less discords  and  corruptions  into  it;  you  split  it  into 
parties;  you  make  Christianity  one  thing,  in  one  coun- 
try, a  quite  different  in  another.    In  Englandyoxa  make 
it  wear  an  Episcopal  form ;  in  Scotland,  a  Presbyterian  ; 
in   France,  a    Popish;   in  Denmark,  a  Lutheran;  in 
Prussia,  a  Calvinist,  in  Russia,  a  Grecian,  &c.     But 
ought  these  things  to  be  so!  Is  Christ  divided?  Is  this  the 
unity  of  his  own  beautiful,  well-compacted  body?   Can 
these  be  all  genuine  apostolic  Christianity!  Rather, 
are  either  of  them  so!  When  the  powers  of  this  world 
take  upon  them  authoritatively  to  interpret  and  prescribe 


356 


APPENDIX. 


in  things  of  religion,  which  are  Christ's  kingdom  and  pro- 
vince, they  act  beyond  their  sphere;  they  invade  the  throne 
of  another  prince ;  the  certain  consequence  of  which  is 
confusions,  separations ;  the  unity  of  the  Church  is 
broken,  the  rights  of  Christians  violated  ;  a  gate  opened 
for  innumerable  superstitions  and  inventions  to  enter, 
and  mingle  with  the  pure  doctrines  of  Christ ;  and  hence 
necessarily  flow  schisms,  emulations,  contentions,  and 
every  evil  work.  I  beseech  you,  by  the  mercies  of 
God,  and  for  the  honour  of  Christianity,  and  by  the 
allegiance  you  owe  your  only  Lawgiver,  Jesus  Christ, 
to  weigh  these  things  in  an  impartial  and  unbiased 
mind." — pp.  67,  68. 

Pardon  me  for  introducing  these  lengthy  quotations. 
Their  importance  is  my  only  apology.  They  are  like 
apples  of  gold  in  pictures  of  silver. 

The  sentiment  they  teach  us  is  one  most  dear  to 
every  Baptist.  It  is  a  sentiment  incorporated  into  the 
very  structure  of  the  Church  of  Christ  as  most  sacredly 
adhered  to  by  Baptists  in  every  age. 

The  neglect  of  this  rule  of  Christian  faith  and  prac- 
tice, has  been  the  prolific  source  of  a  vast  amount  of  the 
commotions  which  have  agitated  the  Christian  Church. 
In  the  expressive  language  of  the  author  above  cited, 
"  Whoever  departs  from  this,  must  wander  into  end- 
less mazes  of  Church  tyranny  and  superstition,  till  he 
plunge  at  last  into  that  horrid  abyss  of  both,  Popery, 
or  the  Church  of  Rome." 

But  how  strange  it  is  that,  the  very  same  men  and 
Christians  come  out  and  violently  opposeth  is  principle, 
when  endeavouring  to  sustain  infant  baptism,  because 
this  rule  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  their  practice; 
Pedobaptists  reject  the  rule  itself. 

What  can  the  Mormonite,  the  Campbellite,  the  Plum- 
merite,  and,  indeed,  the  errorite  of  every  description, 
desire  more  in  support  of  their  wild  and  extravagant  no- 
tions, than  the  destruction  of  the  above  rule  ]  Let  it  be 
granted  that  we  may  hold  to,  and  practice  things  in  the 
Church  of  God,  for  which  we  have  neither  precept  nor 


APPENDIX. 


357 


example  in  the  New  Testament,  and  what  error  is  there, 
however  absurd,  that  may  not  be  plead  for  as  a  part  of 
Divine  worship] 

And  yet  Dr.  Miller  contends  that  we  may  practice 
those  things,  as  acts  of  Divine  worship,  for  which  toe 
have  no  positive  precept,  nor  explicit  example  to  war- 
rant us  in  doing  so ! ! 

Our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  taking-  this  dangerous  and 
even  ruinous  position,  tell  us  that  there  is  no  explicit 
example,  and  no  positive  precept,  for  females  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  then  they  infer  that  they  may 
practise  infant  baptism  on  the  same  ground  that  female 
communion  is  tolerated  in  the  Christian  Church. 

But  on  examination,  it  will  appear,  that  our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  have  been,  by  their  eagerness  to  brace 
up  infant  baptism,  betrayed  into  a  very  great  mistake.  It 
is  not  true  that  there  is  wo  positive  precept,  nor  explicit  ex- 
ample, in  the  New  Testament,  for  female  communion. 
We  have  both  precept  and  example,  sufficiently  plain 
and  intelligible,  to  justify  every  pious  female,  who  has 
been  baptized  on  profession  of  her  faith,  and  walks  ac- 
cordingly, in  partaking  at  the  Lord's  Table.  Only  let 
there  be  adduced  the  same  amount  of  testimony  in  fa- 
vour of  infant  baptism,  and  we  will  never  again  object 
to  it. 

Now  in  proof  that  there  is  a  Divine  warrant  for  fe- 
male communion  at  the  Lord's  Table,  let  it  be  observed : 

First.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  an  institution  purely  of 
Divine  appointment,  and,  deposited  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Secondly.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  given  to  the  Church 
to  be  observed  and  enjoyed  by  the  members  thereof, 
indiscriminately,  without  any  distinction  in  regard  to 
age  or  sex.  Every  member  of  a  regular  Christian 
Church,  constituted  and  conducted  in  apostolic  order, 
whether  male  or  female,  bond  or  free,  old  or  young,  has 
an  equal  and  indisputable  right  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Table.  Romanists  deny  that  the  communion  in  both 
kinds,  is  intended  for  all  the  members  of  the  Church, 


358 


APPENDIX. 


indiscriminately  ;  hence  they  refuse  to  admit  all  the 
members  alike  to  partake  of  the  broken  symbols  of  our 
dying-  Saviour. 

And  in  this,  they  are  closely  imitated  by  all  Pedo- 
baptist  Chinches.  The  principle  is  the  same  as  found 
in  the  Presbyterian,  the  Episcopal,  the  Methodist,  the 
Lutheran,  and  the  Roman  Churches.  All  these  refuse 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  a  large  portion  of  their  own  mem- 
bers, acknowledged  by  them  to  be  regularly  baptized, 
and  properly  introduced  into  the  Church  ;  made  mem- 
bers, according-  to  their  doctrine,  in  a  way  the  strongest 
possible.  For  these  very  members,  from  whom  the 
communion  at  the  Lord's  Table  is  withheld,  we  are  told, 
are  become  members  of  the  Church  ;  that  they  are  in- 
cluded in  Jehovah? s  covenants  with  his  people ;  and 
that  they  are  entered  into  the  Church  by  baptism. 
Such,  surely,  ought,  by  every  principle  of  right,  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Table  of  the  Lord,  if  we  grant  them  a 
connexion  with  the  Church. 

Further,  the  Church  of  Christ  was  not,  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  made  up  of  males  only,  but  of  females 
also.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Christian  Church  is 
composed  of  believers  without  regard  to  sex  ;  and  that 
all  the  members  of  the  Church  have  an  equal  right  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  the  objection 
against  female  communion  is  unworthy  the  confidence 
of  Christians,  and  much  less  should  such  a  singular 
subterfuge  be  resorted  to  in  defence  of  infant  baptism. 

Now  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  females  did  compose 
a  part  of  the  Apostolic  Churches.  Females  were  admit- 
ted into  the  Church  at  Jerusalem. 

Of  the  thousands  converted  during  the  days  of  the 
Pentecost,  some  were  females,  agreeably  to  the  predic- 
tion of  the  prophet  Joel,  as  cited  and  applied  by  Luke, 
in  Acts  ii.  17,  18.  "  Saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your  sons,  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy."  "And  en  my  servants,  and  on  my 
hand-maidens,  I  will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my 
Spirit."  Now  "  all  flesh"  means  Gentiles  as  well  as 
Jews,  and  is  a  striking  contrast  to  the  maxim  of  the 


APPENDIX. 


359 


Jewish  schools:  "The  Divine  Majesty  dwelleth  not  on 
any  out  of  the  land  of  Israel."  "  All  flesh"  includes 
females  no  less  than  males,  and  upon  the  multitude  were 
the  blessings  of  the  Spirit  poured. 

44  They  that  gladly  received  his  word,  were  baptized." 

"The  Lord  added  to  the  Church,  daily,  such  as 
should  be  saved." 

"  And  believers  were  the  more  added  to  the  Lord, 
multitudes  both  of  men  and  women." — -Acts  ii.  41,  47; 
v.  14. 

Now  here  is  positive  evidence  that  females  were 
members  of  the  Church,  which  was  composed  of  be- 
lievers, baptized  on  profession  of  their  faith,  and  thus 
admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  the  assembly  of  the  faith- 
ful. And  the  evidence  that  such  pious  baptized  females 
were  received  to  the  Lord's  Table,  is  no  less  explicitly 
stated.  "All  that  believed  were  together."  "And 
they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and 
fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayer." — 
Acts  ii.  42,  44. 

Another  Scripture  is  no  less  express  in  teaching  that 
pious  females  were  members  of  the  Church  in  the  times 
of  the  Apostles,  and  so  had  a  right  to  the  communion 
as  well  as  the  male  members. 

"  When  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  con- 
cerning the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women" — 
Acts  viii.  12. 

Now  here  again  the  proof  is  positive,  that  the  Church, 
in  the  city  of  Samaria,  was  composed  of  believers,  fe- 
males as  well  as  males.  And  all,  collectively,  enjoyed 
the  privileges  of  the  Church. 

But  a  still  more  explicit  example,  if  possible,  where 
all  in  the  Church  were  admitted  to  the  communion,  is 
recorded  in  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17,  and  xi.  23 — 26. 

"The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ1?  The  bread  which 
we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? 
For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body ;  for 
we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread." 


360  APPENDIX. 

There  is,  therefore,  evidence,  positive  and  explicit, 
that  females  were  both  members  of  the  Church  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  and  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Female  communion  was  exemplified  and  prac- 
tised in  the  primitive  Church.  It  has  a  Divine  and 
positive  warrant  in  the  Bible,  and  is  not  left  to  be 
guessed  at,  and  made  out  by  inference  and  suppositions. 

Let  such  proof  be  adduced  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and  Pedobaptists  may  take  back  those  honest  and 
just  concessions  which  they  have  made,  viz.,  that  there 
is  no  precept,  command,  nor  yet  example,  in  the  New 
Testament,  for  infant  baptism. 

The  Lord's  Day,  or  the  First  Day  of  the  week,  is 
sanctioned  by  the  examples  of  the  holy  and  inspired 
Apostles,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath.  So  perfectly  des- 
titute of  all  manner  of  substantial  evidence,  is  infant  bap- 
tism, as  to  seek  support  at  the  expense  of  the  Lord's 
Day. 

The  Christian  Sabbath,  the  religious  observance  of 
which  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  support  of  re- 
ligion and  virtue,  yet  the  blessed  Sabbath  must  resign 
its  claims  to  Divine  authority,  and  be  based  upon  frail 
human  reasoning,  for  the  sake  of  furnishing  some  sort 
of  a  plea  for  infant  baptism. 

The  advocates  of  Pedobaptism  tell  us  there  are  no 
precept  nor  examples  in  the  New  Testament,  for  observ- 
ing the  First  Day  of  the  week,  called  the  Lord's  Day, 
as  the  Christian  Sabbath  ;  and  then  they  infer  that  they 
may  sprinkle  infants,  although  neither  commanded  nor 
exemplified  in  the  Gospel. 

But  in  this  last  attempt,  as  in  all  others,  their  plea  is 
not  only  void  of  the  least  shade  of  evidence,  but  stands 
in  fearful  conflict  with  the  cause  of  righteousness  and 
truth. 

For,  let  it  be  observed,  that  there  are  several  Divine 
apostolic  examples  for  keeping  the  First  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath.  The  Son  of  man  is 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day;  and  as  he  had  the  right,  so 
he  saw  Jit  to  sanction  the  First  day  of  the  week  as  the 


APPENDIX.  3Q! 

Christian  Sabbath,  upon  which  he  finished  the  great 
work  of  redemption,  when  he  rose  from  the  dead,  as 
God  had  set  apart  and  sanctified  the  Seventh  day,  on 
completing  the  work  of  creation. — Ex.  xx.  11. 

As  I  purpose  to  be  brief,  I  will  only  remark  that  the 
First  clay  of  the  week,  the  day  on  which  Christ  burst 
the  gate  of  the  grave  and  triumphed  over  death,  was 
sanctioned  by  the  presence  of  Christ  himself  with  his 
disciples  after  his  resurrection,  and  observed  by  the  in- 
spired Apostles,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

Christ  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  first  day. — Mat. 
xxviii.  1 — 6.  John  xx.  19,  20.  This  resurrection  day 
was  the  first  of  the  fifty  to  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

The  next  first  day  of  the  week  the  disciples  were 
gathered  together  :  "Then  came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the 
midst,  and  said,  Peace  be  unto  you." — John  xx.  26. 

Says  Dr.  Paley,  "This  second  meeting  on  the  same 
day  of  the  week,  has  all  the  appearance  of  an  appoint- 
ment, a  design  to  meet  on  that  particular  day." 

Again ;  the  Pentecost,  on  which  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given,  was  the  First  day  of  the  week,  i.  e.,  our  Sunday, 
or  the  Lord's  Day.  Here  the  Saviour  sanctioned  the 
First  day,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  by  the  descent  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  On  this  Pentecost  day,  the  disciples 
were  assembled  for  Divine  worship. 

"And  thus  the  Lord's  Day,"  says  Dr.  Wilson,  "is 
gradually,  but  firmly  and  completely  established,  by 
exactly  that  kind  of  evidence  which  the  nature  of  the 
case  demanded,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  saw  to  be  best. 
Its  authority  is  Divine,  because  the  example  of  the 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  and  of  his  Apostles  inspired  to 
found  his  Church,  is  a  Divine  authority.'''' 

But  still  further,  we  have  the  most  explicit  example 
possible,  that  the  Apostles  observed  the  First  day. 
Acts  xx.  7.  "  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week 
when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them."  See  also,  1  Cor.  xvi.  2;  Rev.  i. 
10;  Ps.  cxviii.  23,24. 
31 


A   BRIEF    INDEX. 


Page. 
Assembly  of  Divines,  -  347 

Baptism,  a  positive  institution  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,       ------         57 

explicitly  revealed,  -  -  -         63 

Baptize,  import  of  the  word,  -  -  67,  99 

can  be  translated,  -  -  69 

has  been  translated,  -  -  -         71 

why  not  translated  in  the  New  Testament,         77 

figurative  use  of,  ...       102 

usus  loquendi  of,  -  105,  111,  131 

compared  with  the  Greek  words  meaning1 

to  wash,  pour  and  sprinkle,      -  108,  155 

how  understood  by  Greeks,  -  -       110 

Pedobaptist  views  of,  -  116 

explained  by  its  connexion,  -  120 

classic  and  Scripture  use  of,  -  122,  133 


Baptism  as  an  ordinance,  when  first  known,  33,  137 

of  Christ,  -  -  -  142 

in  Enori,  -  163 

Pentecost,  -  -  -  1 66 

of  3000,  of  10,000  in  one  day,       -  -      177 

of  Paul,  -  -  -  -       178 

of  the  Jailer,  ...  -       181 

of  the  Eunuch,      -  197 

compared  to  a  burial   and   resurrection, 

203,217 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  -  -      216 


Bible  Society,  account  of,  15  and  note,  89  and  note 

— —  only  authority  for  the  rite  of  baptism,  -        30 


364  1ni>ex. 

Page. 
Bible  earliest  translators  of  the,  -     82  and  note 

translated  by  King"  James  I.,  -  -92 

Baxter's  sixth  argument,  ...       148 

Christ's  baptism,  not  his  initiation  into  the  office  of 

a  priest,  r.  -,---48 

Christ  sanctioned.  John's  baptism,  -  .43 

Christ  baptized  in  Jordan,  -  .  .       142 

Christian  union,       -----       225 
Church,   a  spiritual  body,  ...       228 

Circumcision,  what,  -  287 

Easter,  import  of,  -  -  -  -         93 

Ecclesia,  import  of,  93 

Female  communion,  -  351 

Infant  baptism,  no  Bible  for,  -  238 

not  commanded,     -  -  239,  242 

not  forbidden  expressly,     -  -       244 

■ inferred  from  Mat.  xvii'i.  19,  20,  and 

Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  -  -       269 

from  Romans  xi.  16,   17;       275 

from   1    Cor.   vii.    14;       278 
from  Mat.  xix.  13—15;       279 
from   infant   circumci- 
sion, -  -       282 
' from  household  baptism,          299 

1,  of  Lvdia,  -       302 

2,  of  the  Jailer,         -       307 

3,  of  Slephanas,        -       309 

direct  testimony  against,  -       311 

natural  tendency  and  consequence 

of,  -  -  312, 322,  333 

John  Baptized  in  Jordan,  -  -  139,  142 

in  Enon,       -  163 

John's  Baptism  Christian,  and  valid,  188,  43,  139 

Siark  vii.  3, 4,  considered,  -  -  -      151 

Principles  of  Biblical  interpretation,  -  -        25 

Proselyte  baptism,  where  found,  -  33 

Priest,  at  what  age  initiated  into  his  office,  -         44 

Style  of  the  Greek  ofthe  New  Testament,  -      124 

The  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  conferred  upon  cer- 
tain disciples,       -  185 
Tradition  not  valid  proof,                 -             -             -       249 
The  Lord's  Day  sanctioned  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,     360 


